On Thin Negatives

[Reginald S.]

You may start posting new and interesting findings.

 

[Ian Grant]

Before posting more.

Chuckroast (@tronobulus) I I have never said the techniques you advocate don't work, rather that your own results you post as examples don't remotely match your own claims, and actually show the opposite. Images with very poor tonal range, heavily compensated.

If you posted the same threads/images on any other photography forums the hyenas would be licking your bones. Just get a grip on reality.

Steve Sherman's images using similar techniques are superb, yours are frankly awful and that's as someone who has taught photograph for over 550 years, they are in the bottom 5% and a failure, just a mark for just submitting something.

Chuckroast, every image you post has major technical issues, you clearly don't even have a basic understanding ot photographic technique.

You area total fraud.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

Before posting more.

Chuckroast (@tronobulus) I I have never said the techniques you advocate don't work, rather that your own results you post as examples don't remotely match your own claims, and actually show the opposite. Images with very poor tonal range, heavily compensated.

If you posted the same threads/images on any other photography forums the hyenas would be licking your bones. Just get a grip on reality.

Steve Sherman's images using similar techniques are superb, yours are frankly awful and that's as someone who has taught photograph for over 550 years, they are in the bottom 5% and a failure, just a mark for just submitting something.

Chuckroast, every image you post has major technical issues, you clearly don't even have a basic understanding ot photographic technique.

You area total fraud.

Ian

<I would normally do this in private, but since the broadside was public ...>

Fortunately, you are in a minority of one insofar as many of these images have played to some acclaim AND have been shared widely in other forums, again to very positive responses. Some of the images you claim have no merit hang as objet d'art in peoples homes and business offices, in some cases having commanded rather princely prices. So - horror of horrors - not only are they perceived as good work, people actually pay to own it. So, you are factually utterly wrong.

I am endlessly curious about ways of working that are new to me. I always welcome specific and targeted commentary that is helpful in leading to corrections of technique or vision. "Your images are all terrible" - beyond being demonstrably false - are neither of those things. You're just having a public temper tantrum and you look silly doing it.

However, if you can ever manage to come up with something specific and targeted and - heaven help us - thoughtful, in this regard I would welcome your feedback.

I am well aware that you drove a couple of other very nice chaps off this forum a number of years ago by your insults and general manner. For reasons unknown to me, you decided to make this personal, so it's apparently my turn. Could it be you resent non-British participation here? Could it be you resent someone who easily as skilled and experienced as you are? Do you hate not always being seen as the sole font of wisdom in a public forum? All of these are entirely consistent with The Internet Expert (tm) personality profile.

Apart from your intermittent brain flatulence like the nonsense above, I've learned good things from your posts and would expect to do so again in the future. I find the other members here thoughtful, talented, and doing interesting work, and I enjoy seeing this. So as we say here in the Colonies ... Buckle Up Buttercup ... I'm not going anywhere.

With deep love and affection I remain,
thronobulax

(Personally, I am writing all this off to it being the shank of the evening at the pub on a Friday night ...)

 

[Keith tapscott.]

I'm not aware that John Blakemore's negatives were thin, but I know that he exposed his large format films on the generous side. I attended a workshop of his at Duckspool and he mentioned that he set his Weston Master at 64 ASA for FP4 film He would often expose shadows at zone 4 and control contrast with development time.
His negatives are probably more softer in contrast rather than thin.