With the grain, it feels very Ansel Adams.

Of course, you have to have good light and good subject matter first, so I'm not saying only the chemical process makes it look good! Good job.

D'aww, thanks! You're gonna make me get all big headed and pompous by saying things like that :)

You're right on, about the process though. Spending thousands on a Nikon, or Canon, or Leica, or Hasselblad, or whatever, doesn't make things magically look good. Even if it's got a full frame sensor and a bajillion megapixels, or it is the camera W. Eugene Smith used, sensible people don't care. In the end it's only the image that matters!

Glad you liked this one :)

Good picture. I admit it does feel a little Ansel Adams (not a bad thing) with the nature subject, the black and white and the framing in an 'odd' aspect. It beats the endless parade of 4:3 pictures. And a bit of virtual matting around it... I think I like that the most. It makes it Look much more like a picture hanging on a wall than something posted up online.

I'm a little envious if you're developing your own film (I assume that's the 'souping'?). I took a photography class in college and we did our own development and prints. I miss the process... there was a certain zen to it. Plus it looks like it's becoming a quickly lost art, between the digital revolution and the one-hour drugstore print shops.

I agree with the both of you: Your photos are what you make of them. It doesn't matter if you have a $1500 DSLR or an aging $40 film point-and-shoot. Skilled hands and creative minds can make anything look good. It's all about the tool in the hands of a skilled user.

(And Gender: Herm? Good thing I appreciate intelligent humor...) ^_~

Actually, the virtual matting that you like is actually unexposed photo paper. It's just long tall composition on matte 8x10 paper. I'm with you though, I like the white, directs the eye inward, or something like that.

But, yes, I do develop my own film, and after getting a screaming good craigslist deal on an enlarger (cheap even after I replaced both the crappy lenses that came with it [right now is pretty much the best time ever to get into darkroom stuff, if you're inclined to]) I've begun printing again - going off of half remembered high-school classes. Developing isn't that hard to do, really, and pretty cheap, even getting new stuff. Thirty bucks for a Paterson universal tank and reel, eighteen for a changing bag, sixteen for fixer and some developer, water for stopbath, a pair of scissors and a church-key to open film canisters, and you're set to go. Of course then, there's always the question of what to do with your negatives. My flatbed scanner will do film, but it's not an option that everyone has :)

And, once more, yes. Photography is all about what you make it. Back to Ansel Adams. He was a huge fan of the Polaroid Land camera, worked as a consultant to the company, and made some very fine photos with the Land camera. (http://www.iphotocentral.com/Photos/andrewsmith_Images/Full/AA-2428.jpg - for instance). Lemme repeat that for emphasis. Polaroid camera. Granted, it's several steps above the Polaroid cameras that spat the oddly colored pictures out at you (you could get negative film, for instance), but still. Polaroid Camera!

So, yes. Know what you're doing, and you'll get results, regardless :)

Prints like this make me lumpy. Have always aspired to making some myself someday!

I heard that Delta is a fussy as far as dark room process goes compared to older emulsions (e.g FP4 / HP5) which you can abuse and still get a decent neg from.

Aw, thanks!

I'm really happy with my enlarger. Best $50 I ever spent!

I really enjoy printing. It adds a whole new dimension to the whole experience. While shooting, for me, is all manic motion, trying to get everything that I can before the moment passes. Printing slows everything down and makes me think about dust control, and composition, and proper exposure, and contrast, and all that. It's a good change of pace.

I've since learned that Delta doesn't like compensating developers at all, and that I'm not the first one to get really bad grain out of the process. It's okay, though, because I'm mostly worshiping at the alter of the Great Yellow Father, these days, and shooting lots of Plus-X and Tri-X, along with some occasional TMX.

I'm really, really tempted to get some Harvy's 777, and play around with that, though. Results I've seen around look good.

I always find dust control is a bit of a nightmare for my negs, I only scan, but it's a huge problem with black and white since ICE doesn't work on B&W!

Not tried shooting with Tri-X or Plus-X, but I understand they're the 'old style' emulsions like FP4 + HP5. I think Plus-X is finer than FP4 from what I've read, but I'm just a bit of a Ilford fanboy - I'm really iterested in Acros 100 though since I've read it's really really good for reciprocity.

I've not heard of Harvys 777! It's looks kinda like Microphen, good for pushing, right? Also, have you tried Rodinal at all?

Dust! Ugh. Would it work if you scanned the negs as transparency film, and then inverted the colors once it was scanned? Or does the process only work on color images? I've never muddled about with digital ICE. My scanner isn't that fancy :)

I do love Tri-X. Lots. It just looks good to my eye. The T-grain films are too slick looking, and Illford? Well, I've not shot any since, well, probably not since I shot this roll. I was casting about for a replacement for AGFA APX, when AGFA was bought out, and for whatever reason Kodak won. Not sure what my reason was, though. It might just have been nostalgic! Maybe I should get some HP5 and give it another chance.

Plus-X is something that I've only come to recently. I had been told that Kodak didn't make it any more, and that I should just shoot TMX instead. Happily this is not really the case, and after a couple test rolls, I now have an order in to Calumet for a 100' bulk roll.

(See: http://www.furnation.com/Ulrik/Waugh/wedding.jpg and http://www.furnation.com/Ulrik/Waugh/chiunder.jpg, for examples, ignoring the scanner glass dust. [Dust! Ugh.] Both are 5x7 prints)

Sadly I haven't used Rodinal at all. Not even when I was shooting APX. My experience is limited to Diafine and good old D-76.

AFAIK, digital ICE works by using infrared, as color C-41 film is transparent to IR, but dust is not. Silver particles in B&W negatives, on the other paw, is opaque to all wavelengths of light, so ICE doesn't work.

I really need to load up some more film in my medium format tank-of-a-camera and go shooting... I've got a pro-pack of Kodak Ektar 100 that came in the mail a couple months ago that I haven't even opened yet, and a bunch of Ilford films just sitting there... but it gets dark so early now with winter here, and my sleep schedule only affords me a couple hours of light each day. :P

Hm! Bleach-fix and ICE, partners in crime. Who would have thought?

And, yes. As much as I love having 2 1/4" negs, I do hate shooting them. Or rather, I hate having to haul around a boat anchor of a camera, hate being so conspicuous as I pull it up and start shooting, and most of all hate the noise in makes. It's like a canon, going off! Yeah. That's subtle.

But, it's got me looking for a Rollei, now. The size difference, leaf shutters, and TLR focusing should make things a little less obtrusive, on the street. Maybe. Hopefully.

There's probably some irony in the fact that I'm also looking at 4x5" field cameras.