# morning



## crawdaddio (Oct 8, 2007)

Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200


----------



## Alpha (Oct 10, 2007)

You actually shot this at 3200? And then processed at 3200? It's f'in sweet.


----------



## crawdaddio (Oct 10, 2007)

Yup. 11 minutes at 75F. in TMAX developer. I agitated less frequently (for 5 sec. every 45 sec.) to keep the highlight detail a little.
Thankx,
~DC


----------



## Alpha (Oct 10, 2007)

TMAX, huh? I usually process TX in D76. Any particular reason you opted for TMAX developer?


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 10, 2007)

You should definitely crop the bottom off.


----------



## Alpha (Oct 10, 2007)

The leak at the bottom is great, not only for the optical shift in his body, but also because it accentuates the framing in the top half.


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 13, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> The leak at the bottom is great, not only for the optical shift in his body, but also because it accentuates the framing in the top half.


Oh yeah, because the bottom half is so crappy it certainly does accentuate the top half's superior lighting and composition quality.


----------



## MrMatthieu (Oct 13, 2007)

Nice to see someone who use film :thumbup:

I heard from a specialist that it s recommended to use TX instead of Tmax for such pushed development. Have you ever tried to compare?

mat


----------



## crawdaddio (Oct 13, 2007)

The Phototron said:


> Oh yeah, because the bottom half is so crappy it certainly does accentuate the top half's superior lighting and composition quality.





Why so negative? Somebody piss in your cereal?
I do not crop my photos, they are all full frame.

Max- I have never used anything but TMAX. It's easy for me to get locally and it's cheap.
MrMatthieu- I have pushed TMAX100 to 400. The results are not as good as Tri-X. I don't usually like tmax film NEARLY as much as Tri-x. tmax tends to look soft and lean toward silvery tones that I find flat. JMO.


----------



## just x joey (Oct 13, 2007)

i liek this. i want to get one of those medium format cameras.


----------



## abraxas (Oct 13, 2007)

crawdaddio said:


> Why so negative? Somebody ...





Still looks like you're having fun.  Nice shot.


----------



## alexblackwelder (Oct 13, 2007)

I love the bottom part. The shot would have a completely different feel without it.


----------



## NateS (Oct 13, 2007)

I like the bottom portion as well.  It would be too plain without it.


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 13, 2007)

crawdaddio said:


> Why so negative? Somebody piss in your cereal?
> I do not crop my photos, they are all full frame.


Half is not negative. And I don't eat cereals.

I don't see why you would give a purist crap about not cropping your photo. The end justifies the means.


----------



## NateS (Oct 13, 2007)

I think the real question is why you get sand in your vaginer when someone has a different opinion than you.  There was no need for you to respond negatively about someone elses opinion, and to do so in a rude manner.


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 13, 2007)

NateS said:


> I think the real question is why you get sand in your vaginer when someone has a different opinion than you.  There was no need for you to respond negatively about someone elses opinion, and to do so in a rude manner.


You can never tell who is it that really got his vagina soiled. Tell me, is it the jokes that are negative or the listeners?

Don't tell me I'm rude, when you don't even know if I'm making a light-hearted sarcasm or responding negatively.


----------



## andrew07 (Oct 13, 2007)

looks alomst like a lee friedlander self portrait, very, very nice shot!


----------



## abraxas (Oct 14, 2007)

I'm glad he's wearing underpants.


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 14, 2007)

abraxas said:


> I'm glad he's wearing underpants.


Even if he didn't, it'll just look like the wall grew some hair.


----------



## crawdaddio (Oct 16, 2007)

Well that's mature.
Just out of curiosity, where have you been published? I'd like to have a look at some of your work; judging by your comments here, you must be one hell of a photographer....


----------



## doobs (Oct 16, 2007)

Why don't we calm down here now, fellas?


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 17, 2007)

crawdaddio said:


> Well that's mature.
> Just out of curiosity, where have you been published? I'd like to have a look at some of your work; judging by your comments here, you must be one hell of a photographer....


Sheesh I was just trying to be funny. It's not like I pissed on your cereals!

I love your work, not all of it and not the ones that got published, but some of them really does something for me. 

This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crawdaddio1/243209714/

and this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crawdaddio1/234054576/

and this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crawdaddio1/1107184589/

I appreciate the put-down, but it's not doing anything for me. I just started photography in summer, and I got a clear-goal as where I'm going with it.


----------



## crawdaddio (Oct 17, 2007)

It's hard to get humor across on a message board.
Your last comment seemed purely like a childish insult.
I have no ill-will or feelings toward you, I figured you were just trolling.
Good luck with your photographic goals. (No sarcasm; I'm being sincere)

~DC


----------



## The Phototron (Oct 17, 2007)

crawdaddio said:


> It's hard to get humor across on a message board.
> Your last comment seemed purely like a childish insult.
> I have no ill-will or feelings toward you, I figured you were just trolling.
> Good luck with your photographic goals. (No sarcasm; I'm being sincere)
> ...


Thanks, I have to admit some of my comments are just that, childish. I do have ego problems! Even with little comments like "trolling" I get really irritated and have the urge to bite back, and of course all for the wrong reasons. I'll try to refrain myself more


----------

