What's the best B/W paper you've ever used? ... Agfa? ... Ilford? ... Kodak? ... Fuji?
Chris T wrote:
Clue me in, here, Pablo .... ARPS?
Association of Retired Photographers Society?
Did you pass that name by The Office of Repetitive Redundancy?
Rich2236
Loc: E. Hampstead, New Hampshire
Chris T wrote:
Do you still use it? ... Be sure to mention the name, finish, and texture ....
I used to use Ilford Brovira 113 It was a dead matt finish. But whites were brilliant and blacks were BLACK. But alas, Ilford in their "infinite wisdom" decided it was to good so they stopped making it. It was the most perfect paper for B/W that I had ever found.
Rich...
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
TheShoe wrote:
Did you pass that name by The Office of Repetitive Redundancy?
I wasn't far off ... turned out to be - Associate of Royal Photographic Society ....
Chris.Thanks for the trip down memory lane! This thread has brought back great times. And yes, the digital age has changed the learning curve. I wonder where photography will be when our kids grow up. What will cameras and imaging be like in another 50yrs? Will digital be spoken of as we reminisce about papers and film on forums such as this? Thanks again,
Caranx
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Rich2236 wrote:
I used to use Ilford Brovira 113 It was a dead matt finish. But whites were brilliant and blacks were BLACK. But alas, Ilford in their "infinite wisdom" decided it was to good so they stopped making it. It was the most perfect paper for B/W that I had ever found.
Rich...
Rich ... seems to be some confusion here ... Ilford's bromide papers were / are - known as Ilfobrom ... and, to my knowledge - all B/W papers are still current ....
Brovira (and Portriga Rapid) were Agfa's Bromide papers ....
Agfa went into some restructuring earlier on in this century, and all papers were ceased for a while.
A company named Adox - has recently committed to continue making all Agfa papers - including Bromides and RC (Rapid-Repro) .... so, I'm sure Brovira 113 will return.
Chris T wrote:
But, you see, Dennis ... grain WAS a negative thing, if you get my drift ...
Nowadays, with Digital - they call that Noise ... you have to shift with the times, I guess ...
Frankly ... I'd rather HAVE excessive grain than excessive noise ... in fact, there's FAR TOO MUCH NOISE - in today's music!!!!!
Grain and Noise are two different things.
Grain was IMO always beautiful! Noise being uniform is not so nice and an ugly distraction..... but today is reasonably easy to tame.
I loved the darkroom but I don't miss it at all. Digital makes it easier to enjoy making images and frankly they are better .
I do still "see" photography with the Classical style of the 50's 60's and 70's,..... that era of photography and film I love so much.
Photoshop is a magical program almost like putting paper into developer .......but I get more done faster
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Caranx wrote:
Chris.Thanks for the trip down memory lane! This thread has brought back great times. And yes, the digital age has changed the learning curve. I wonder where photography will be when our kids grow up. What will cameras and imaging be like in another 50yrs? Will digital be spoken of as we reminisce about papers and film on forums such as this? Thanks again,
Caranx
Sure, Caran ... glad you've enjoyed it ...
The Digital Era has changed everything ... not only photographic equipment, but also ways to take pictures ... i.e. cellphones, i-Pads/ notebooks, etc.
Where will it all be in 50 years? ... Some have speculated we will all be clicking shutters, by muscle spasms, triggering mechanisms in glasses .... can't wait!
I suspect forums such as this one are here, to stay ... people like to talk about not only what's past, but what's present, AND - what's on the horizon, Caran .....
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Steamboat wrote:
Grain and Noise are two different things.
Grain was IMO always beautiful! Noise being uniform is not so nice and an ugly distraction..... but today is reasonably easy to tame.
I loved the darkroom but I don't miss it at all. Digital makes it easier to enjoy making images and frankly they are better .
I do still "see" photography with the Classical style of the 50's 60's and 70's,..... that era of photography and film I love so much.
Photoshop is a magical program almost like putting paper into developer .......but I get more done faster
Grain and Noise are two different things. br Grai... (
show quote)
AND - your hands stay clean ... and you don't have to deal with chemical smells, and you don't have to be on your feet all the time ... and ... and ... and ...
And, the images are so much better - you're right, Steam .... It's all good! ....
Chris T wrote:
It's this switch to digital encapsulations, and away from real band use. Bands created a live feel to the music, even when they recorded in studios.
Nowadays, everything's done with synthesizers, and computers. It's cheaper than hiring session musicians, and paying royalty fees to each participant.
But what you wind up with - in most cases - with folks who really don't know what they're doing - is - just - a lotta noise. Yesterday's music was more simple.
Digital noise is ALWAYS a problem ... there's so damned much of it, in almost everything I shoot. I am overly noise-conscious, now, and see it in everything.
How do you actually USE digital noise, Dennis ... in restoring old photos .... I don't get it ....
It's this switch to digital encapsulations, and aw... (
show quote)
On really lousy images I use the add noise filter in selective areas to restore texture to an image, I’m talking mostly old snapshots that are damaged and have blown out highlights. Also to minimize extreme banding in in sky’s in customers digital snapshots from cell phones.
I wish Photoshop had a “add noise” brush, it would save me some time.
I wish Photoshop had a “add noise” brush, it would save me some time.
Put the noise on a layer and then brush it in .... adjust opacity to taste.
I guess it doesn't save you time but getting lost in PS is 1/2 the fun
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
DennisC. wrote:
On really lousy images I use the add noise filter in selective areas to restore texture to an image, I’m talking mostly old snapshots that are damaged and have blown out highlights. Also to minimize extreme banding in in sky’s in customers digital snapshots from cell phones.
I wish Photoshop had a “add noise” brush, it would save me some time.
Why not put it in their Suggestions Box, Dennis?
I hadn't realized adding noise could actually eliminate banding ....
Maybe, I shouldn't be so down on excessive noise, then, huh?
Haha. 3-D prints...can you imagine the depth of field!?! Hyperfocus, tilt-shift, dodging & burning, perspective control, pixels or trixels? Lightroom will be so big, they'll call it Lighthouse, Photoshop will be Photomall, Mirrorless will be obsolete...holographic imaging will be in! Hoggers will still ponder and argue about which system has the most terabytes per image, Amazon will teleport products and we'll buy gear from 3Bay on the outernet! 🤣🤣
Good fun, Chris. Great topic and thread!
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Caranx wrote:
Haha. 3-D prints...can you imagine the depth of field!?! Hyperfocus, tilt-shift, dodging & burning, perspective control, pixels or trixels? Lightroom will be so big, they'll call it Lighthouse, Photoshop will be Photomall, Mirrorless will be obsolete...holographic imaging will be in! Hoggers will still ponder and argue about which system has the most terabytes per image, Amazon will teleport products and we'll buy gear from 3Bay on the outernet! 🤣🤣
Good fun, Chris. Great topic and thread!
Haha. 3-D prints...can you imagine the depth of fi... (
show quote)
Wow, Caran ... it looks like you've gotten photography 50 years from now all figured out, already, huh?
You'll have to pardon me for this little gag ... but, honestly ... I think you've been watching too much Star Trek !!!!
BTW ... thanks for the compliment ....
BHC
Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
Chris T wrote:
I wasn't far off ... turned out to be - Associate of Royal Photographic Society ....
Following that traditional style, would there also be a Fellow of Royal Photographic Society?
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
BHC wrote:
Following that traditional style, would there also be a Fellow of Royal Photographic Society?
You're asking ME, Bill?
I've no idea ...
I had to ask Pablo what ARPS stood for ...
I pegged it as - Association of Retired Photographers Society ...
I had the "R" wrong, but the rest of it was pretty close ....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.