Ornello wrote:You think a stop is that important....really? You can't live with EI 650? Really?
Ornello wrote:Looking back on all my pushed photographs...maybe one out of a thousand was any good. I thought it was so important to shoot in the lowest light, but hardly any of those low-light images turned out to be any good after all. It was all a waste of effort.
What can I say? To blame the technique is the easiest.
Ornello wrote:I do what I want...
Ornello wrote:What I question is your looking to 120 alone for high quality, when you could get superb quality with 35mm.
I do get superb quality with 35mm given the conditions. (and It is not you Ornello that is going to be the judge of that) 120 is another league.
Not necessarily! It's obvious you're not going to get the quality I am.
When I stopped trying to photograph in dark places just for the hell of it my work improved. You need light. There's just nothing else that will do the trick. The photons just have to be there or you're just wasting your time. If you need more photons, try a Noctilux:
http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/ ... /5915.html
I don't understand why you (and so many other people) treat 35mm with indifference as to to quality of result. It makes no sense. In any event, people should be taught how to get the most out of their equipment first; then if they wish to do something else they will have a basis for comparison. That's what I am trying to do here, to help people achieve optimum results. If you don't know this you won't have a standard for comparison. The farther you deviate from the optimum, the worse the results are on an absolute basis.
Pushing does not work. The photons have to be there. You can't improve through development film that has not received sufficient illumination (aside from some rather esoteric methods such as using mercury vapors, not a recommended procedure).
What I'm suggesting is that you learn to live within the limits of the equipment and materials and try to get the best from them. Neopan 1600 at EI 650 is spectacular stuff. It is an amazingly good film, not significantly grainier than Tri-X Pan. When you consider I rate Tri-X Pan at EI 250 and Neopan 1600 at EI 650, you can see why I use it. Honestly, get some of it and try it. It develops very quickly, so you may have to experiment with times to keep the contrast down.