I miss the omission of the ?????

MatBin said:
Chemicals. Although one set somehow got mucked up and the smell was apalling.
Click to expand...


Early photographers could muck up big time and release cyanide gas, though it smells of almonds they rarely lived long enough to find out.

it is possible to use potassium ferricyanide ( the bleach) to form cyanide, but there is no useful purpose in knowing how.
 
Last edited:
Dave in Wales said:
In my case it's the 'lens aperture ring'.....what's yours ?.
Click to expand...
Great thread idea Dave!

I miss the dedicated exposure compensation button to the right of the shutter button on my older DSLRs.
Press the button, click the wheel one or two steps right or left : foolproff.
Now we have customisable "Function" buttons instead : not foolproff,
or even worse : Fuji's "who cares if it gets knocked and ruins yer Jpegs" exp comp dial on the edge of the body where it'll get skewed every day.
 
Blank_no one s said:
One thing I don't miss is flat-bed glazing machines, oyster-shell markings, pits and fleck-marks ! - some darkroom tools are best consigned to the dustbin !
Click to expand...

In which case no one taught you how to prepare ox-gall. Never had a glazing ring or fleck after my first few days at college.
What did irritate were students who glazed dip washed prints still loaded with fixer.
But then we were only a stones throw from smithfield where ox-gal was available fresh for the price of someone saving it for you. Rather than sending it down the drain.
"Nice people" never knew that "glazing solution " was the contents of some poor cows gall bladder.
Or that kodak was the largest breader and processor of cattle in the Usa to supply their vast need for gelatine.
 
Last edited:
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Great thread idea Dave!

I miss the dedicated exposure compensation button to the right of the shutter button on my older DSLRs.
Press the button, click the wheel one or two steps right or left : foolproff.
Now we have customisable "Function" buttons instead : not foolproff,
or even worse : Fuji's "who cares if it gets knocked and ruins yer Jpegs" exp comp dial on the edge of the body where it'll get skewed every day.
Click to expand...


Not knocked my fuji wheel yet. But then you should always check what you have set in the viewfinder. It is as bad to leave it set accidentally as it is to accidently change it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In which case no one taught you how to prepare ox-gall. Never had a glazing ring or fleck after my first few days at college.
What did irritate were students who glazed dip washed prints still loaded with fixer.
But then we were only a stones throw from smithfield where ox-gal was available fresh for the price of someone saving it for you. Rather than sending it down the drain.
"Nice people" never knew that "glazing solution " was the contents of some poor cows gall bladder.
Or that kodak was the largest breader and processor of cattle in the Usa to supply their vast need for gelatine.
Click to expand...

To be fair mate, that was old technology and on the way out when I was a photography student !
 
dizidav said:
Your rounding up just like the garages did.:)
Click to expand...
Fraud not, 25 new pence ;) is 1/4 of a pound therefore 5 shillings (or 5 Bob if you prefer).
Matt
 
MatBin said:
Fraud not, 25 new pence ;) is 1/4 of a pound therefore 5 shillings (or 5 Bob if you prefer).
Matt
Click to expand...

Or the face value of a crown.
guineas were still the common pricing unit in my younger days.
common prices like 10 shillings and 6 pence were were stll half a guinea.
 
Last edited:
Grammar police alert... :p

Is it too late to point out the thread title is a borderline double negative (ambiguous)...
I regret the omission of...
I miss the addition of...

And that the elipse is more suitable than multiple question marks.

Back on topic.

We all know that Digital FF is better quality than 35mm, but obviously bigger film is better, however if anyone wants to think that 35mm film is quirky to use, don't even think about getting decent scans of 120 film or larger. Or even picking up your own enlarger that size.

I'm with Dave on this (almost), yes it was magical watching a print materialise, but what a load of hassle to get there. sitting in a comfy chair looking at a computer screen listening to good music and drinking coffee is my idea of photo processing.
 
Phil V said:
We all know that Digital FF is better quality than 35mm, but obviously bigger film is better, however if anyone wants to think that 35mm film is quirky to use, don't even think about getting decent scans of 120 film or larger. Or even picking up your own enlarger that size.
Click to expand...

Could you explain that to me? I know I'm being dense, but I think it's easier to scan larger film; and if you mean by "picking up" "buying" rather than "carrying" I don't see much difference in the enlargers. If you do mean carrying, that's a different matter - I carried my 5x4 enlarger single handed up two flights of stairs to my darkroom, and didn't enjoy the experience ;)
 
I think we all want different things from our photography, and approach it from our own perspective, the thing that always seems to be prevalent in these discussions is the idea that following both processes to conclusion, ends with the same thing, for me it clearly does not.
Its like discussing the merits of making a statue out of wood vs steel, both are statues but are created, look and feel completely differently.
I highly doubt Gormley would appreciate the suggestion that the Angel of The North should have been made out of wood, simply because its easier, his concept was a steel sculpture, I don't see a way round not using steel.
If you want digital pictures, this is how you do it, if you want film, this is how you do that, comparisons of quality, ease of use, cost, comfy chairs, boredom and everything else seem completely irrelevant..:)
 
Phil V said:
We all know that Digital FF is better quality than 35mm, but obviously bigger film is better, however if anyone wants to think that 35mm film is quirky to use, don't even think about getting decent scans of 120 film or larger. Or even picking up your own enlarger that size.

I'm with Dave on this (almost), yes it was magical watching a print materialise, but what a load of hassle to get there. sitting in a comfy chair looking at a computer screen listening to good music and drinking coffee is my idea of photo processing.
Click to expand...



Is photography all about the avoidance of effort? Wouldn't it be much easier to sit and watch TV then?

Also a good scanner can get as much raw resolution as last years ff cameras. 20mp is more than available from slower emulsions. So yes ff has finally surpassed 35mm at the top end but only recently and my 35mm pictures taken 5 years ago still have that potential my digital shots don't.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Is photography all about the avoidance of effort? Wouldn't it be much easier to sit and watch TV then?
...
Click to expand...
Of course it's not, nor am I knocking the pursuit of happiness through shooting film, whether it's with a 10x8 monorail or a pinhole in a coke can, feel free to knock yourself out. But please don't get lofty about the method of capture.

Would Picasso's Guernica be a better painting if we discovered he was using out of date paint or 2nd hand brushes? Would the Mona Lisa take on more meaning if we found out Leonardo painted it with an eye infection?

All that matters to the viewer is the end result, if we choose to make the process complicated, either by shooting film, light painting a tricky object, stitching images together or whatever floats our boat - then that's what we do for fun, but lets not get prissy about one technique being superior to another. I find a darkroom a needlessly uncomfortable proposition, but if you enjoy that - knock yourself out.
 
Phil V said:
Of course it's not, nor am I knocking the pursuit of happiness through shooting film, whether it's with a 10x8 monorail or a pinhole in a coke can, feel free to knock yourself out. But please don't get lofty about the method of capture.

Would Picasso's Guernica be a better painting if we discovered he was using out of date paint or 2nd hand brushes? Would the Mona Lisa take on more meaning if we found out Leonardo painted it with an eye infection?

All that matters to the viewer is the end result, if we choose to make the process complicated, either by shooting film, light painting a tricky object, stitching images together or whatever floats our boat - then that's what we do for fun, but lets not get prissy about one technique being superior to another. I find a darkroom a needlessly uncomfortable proposition, but if you enjoy that - knock yourself out.
Click to expand...


Make it too easy though, and we stop appreciating it. This is why back in the film day, the kinds of pastoral landscapes so popular with amateurs often genuinely were real achievements. Now, they're so easy as to be utterly unremarkable, and so numerous were sick of seeing them.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Make it too easy though, and we stop appreciating it. This is why back in the film day, the kinds of pastoral landscapes so popular with amateurs often genuinely were real achievements. Now, they're so easy as to be utterly unremarkable, and so numerous were sick of seeing them.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, but one of those landscapes doesn't now automatically become better just because the method of capture made it trickier. We've moved on, and so those landscapes will never be remarkable again.
 
Phil V said:
Of course it's not, nor am I knocking the pursuit of happiness through shooting film, whether it's with a 10x8 monorail or a pinhole in a coke can, feel free to knock yourself out. But please don't get lofty about the method of capture.

Would Picasso's Guernica be a better painting if we discovered he was using out of date paint or 2nd hand brushes? Would the Mona Lisa take on more meaning if we found out Leonardo painted it with an eye infection?

All that matters to the viewer is the end result, if we choose to make the process complicated, either by shooting film, light painting a tricky object, stitching images together or whatever floats our boat - then that's what we do for fun, but lets not get prissy about one technique being superior to another. I find a darkroom a needlessly uncomfortable proposition, but if you enjoy that - knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

Who's getting haughty? The first mention I noticed of one being better than the other was a proclamation that every body knew that ff is better than 35mm. And that the darkroom is too much hassle there for digital is better.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Who's getting haughty? The first mention I noticed of one being better than the other was a proclamation that every body knew that ff is better than 35mm. And that the darkroom is too much hassle there for digital is better.
Click to expand...
Like I said - several times, knock yourself out. :)
 
I'm putting it down to the fumes off the chemicals :p
 
steveo_mcg said:
It's all the tea you drink at your computer mate, you should add some rodinal it's great for the constitution. :D
Click to expand...
I don't drink tea. The ordinal has knackered your powers of observation

ETA bloody IOS spellcheck.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I appreciate that, but one of those landscapes doesn't now automatically become better just because the method of capture made it trickier. We've moved on, and so those landscapes will never be remarkable again.
Click to expand...

Really? Adams's landscapes are not still remarkable? Quite a brave comment :) I've yet to see anyone with digital equipment get even close to an Adams print, both quality, and other formal values... and also because they really had an ecological impact. Landscape today is mainly sentimental, pictorial, chocolate box nonsense.

If you've never had the chance to see a real Adams print in the flesh, you really need to.

Photography is not better as a result of digital. It allows people to process the crap out of stuff mainly. Dynamic range has improved, as has ISO sensitivity. Not much else. Large format still kicks digital in the nuts for quality.

95% of what I do is digital. I'm not saying it's rubbish, but I am really, really getting bored of its utter ease of use sometimes. It's convenient when you just have to get a job done, sure, but on projects where time is not a factor etc, it's just BORING. If my interest in photography wasn't actually photography and the subjects I'm shooting (as opposed to gear and process and pretty picture making) I'd have given up ages ago. I feel quite sorry for gear heads... how do they not get bored? I've resorted to using more location lighting lately just to relieve the tedium of shooting digitally... to add some complexity and challenge to what is becoming a mundane, data recording process instead of actual photography.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Really? Adams's landscapes are not still remarkable? Quite a brave comment :) I've yet to see anyone with digital equipment get even close to an Adams print, both quality, and other formal values... and also because they really had an ecological impact. Landscape today is mainly sentimental, pictorial, chocolate box nonsense.

If you've never had the chance to see a real Adams print in the flesh, you really need to.

Photography is not better as a result of digital. It allows people to process the crap out of stuff mainly. Dynamic range has improved, as has ISO sensitivity. Not much else. Large format still kicks digital in the nuts for quality.

95% of what I do is digital. I'm not saying it's rubbish, but I am really, really getting bored of its utter ease of use sometimes. It's convenient when you just have to get a job done, sure, but on projects where time is not a factor etc, it's just BORING. If my interest in photography wasn't actually photography and the subjects I'm shooting (as opposed to gear and process and pretty picture making) I'd have given up ages ago. I feel quite sorry for gear heads... how do they not get bored? I've resorted to using more location lighting lately just to relieve the tedium of shooting digitally... to add some complexity and challenge to what is becoming a mundane, data recording process instead of actual photography.
Click to expand...
Whoa...
You really did read an awful lot from very little.

Yes I've seen Adams prints up close (though how old the prints were, and whether they bear a relationship to prints made in his lifetime...)

And I absolutely never suggested that a 35mm wide digital sensor could come close to that kind of quality.

I really do feel like saying you lot should sit in a corner and have a think about what you're saying.


For me, (and I appreciate that I'm just a hack in your view), the process is more about creating the image than the means of capture, therefore film or digital makes so little difference to my photographic life that a debate about it is hilarious.

Like I said, if you want or need to shoot film, knock yourself out. :)
 
Phil V said:
Yes I've seen Adams prints up close (though how old the prints were, and whether they bear a relationship to prints made in his lifetime...)
Click to expand...

No.. I'm talking about an actual Adams print, printed by Adams... not a reproduction, or a reprint by someone else from his negs... I'm talking about the real deal.




Phil V said:
For me, (and I appreciate that I'm just a hack in your view),
Click to expand...

You don't know what my view of you is, why would you say that? :)


Phil V said:
the process is more about creating the image than the means of capture, therefore film or digital makes so little difference to my photographic life that a debate about it is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct... which is what I was saying. If it wasn't for the fact that the end product, and the subjects being explored, Id have got bored of photography ages ago thanks to digital. What sustains me, as you say, is the image making process .... creatively... the subjects, and what images say... what they communicate. As I said... I feel sorry for gear heads because all digital cameras are basically the same: Just photographic white goods.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You don't know what my view of you is, why would you say that? :)
...
Click to expand...
Because I've seen you use the phrase regarding commercial wedding and portrait photographers on a number of occasions. :thinking:
 
Phil V said:
Because I've seen you use the phrase regarding commercial wedding and portrait photographers on a number of occasions. :thinking:
Click to expand...

There's good wedding photography, and there's just wedding photography. Ditto for commercial portraiture. I don't think I've ever actually seen any of your wedding or commercial portraiture work, so I can't comment on it. I hold you in fairly high regard in terms of your knowledge however.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.. I'm talking about an actual Adams print, printed by Adams... not a reproduction, or a reprint by someone else from his negs... I'm talking about the real deal....
Click to expand...
As I said, I've no idea of the provenance of the prints, they were in a touring exhibition.

Pookeyhead said:
...Absolutely correct... which is what I was saying. If it wasn't for the fact that the end product, and the subjects being explored, Id have got bored of photography ages ago thanks to digital. What sustains me, as you say, is the image making process .... creatively... the subjects, and what images say... what they communicate. As I said... I feel sorry for gear heads because all digital cameras are basically the same: Just photographic white goods.
Click to expand...

We have agreed about this on a number of occasions.
 
Pookeyhead said:
There's good wedding photography, and there's just wedding photography. Ditto for commercial portraiture. I don't think I've ever actually seen any of your wedding or commercial portraiture work, so I can't comment on it. I hold you in fairly high regard in terms of your knowledge however.
Click to expand...
There's a link in my sig...

But I've never professed to be awesome :)
 
Phil V said:
There's a link in my sig...

But I've never professed to be awesome :)
Click to expand...


Probably why I've never looked. This forum has a habit of only showing your sig on the first post (or possibly the first post on each page), then subsequent posts don't show the sig. Very annoying.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
But I've never professed to be awesome :)
Click to expand...

In all seriousness though... what would constitute awesome wedding photography? It almost certainly isn't technical in nature, that much I can be certain of... so yes, as you say, the medium you shoot on is irrelevant in this regard.

All I'm saying is that digital is easy... and hence boring as a process. I reckon that's why so many people are enamoured, and utterly reliant on processing. The actual photography is as dull as dish water. Take processing away and I reckon most amateurs would just chuck the towel in.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, there's not much I miss- especially regarding photography.
I enjoy getting out and about taking pics of the things I like and using the cameras that I like.

Though, on second thoughts...
... maybe the smell of napalm in the morning
 
Pookeyhead said:
Fixed that for you :)... fixed... see what I did there?
Click to expand...
I've only recently started developing film, but I prefer the smell of fresh ground coffee...

Besides, I don't think Col Kilgore would have said 'fixer' :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top