[dsmithhfx]

Have you seen the pic of my avatar? How old do you think I am?

So... nostalgia.

[malinku]

Three shots taken with my Super Ricohflex and Ilford Pan F Plus

[drmoss_ca]

Rolleiflex 2.8GX, Rolleinar III, FP4+, HC-110, X1 scan:









Chris

[RR84]

You can add star effects before or after, just as you can add reverb from the amp, or in post. One isn't better than the other....

Here's the difference. While effects can be added at any stage during the recording / mixing process, it takes an artist who 'knows their sound' to print FX to tape.

Not too long ago I worked with a band who were keen to record their EP in my all-analog studio. Although they had experience recording in digital studios before I knew they weren't ready for tape after seeing them play live on a couple of occasions. When it came time to lay down the guitar tracks it quickly became apparent that the guitarist didn't know his sound. After trying all kinds of FX pedals and reverbs, the guitarist gave up tinkering in the hope that I could make him sound like a rock star in mixdown using all kinds of PP.

While they could get away with it in the digital realm, there's no where to hide on tape.

[Cuthbert]

Here's the difference. While effects can be added at any stage during the recording / mixing process, it takes an artist who 'knows their sound' to print FX to tape.

Not too long ago I worked with a band who were keen to record their EP in my all-analog studio. Although they had experience recording in digital studios before I knew they weren't ready for tape after seeing them play live on a couple of occasions. When it came time to lay down the guitar tracks it quickly became apparent that the guitarist didn't know his sound. After trying all kinds of FX pedals and reverbs, the guitarist gave up tinkering in the hope that I could make him sound like a rock star in mixdown using all kinds of PP.

While they could get away with it in the digital realm, there's no where to hide on tape.

I'm afraid to say that guitarist didn't know what was doing, like many of them today.

My usually setup is guitar->Crybaby->vintage 1976 DOD250 Overdrive-> Trex stereo chorus (to lead two amps and create the stereo effect)->Vox AC30.

That is more than enough, if you have the right amp which gives you the right clean sound an a right distortion/overdrive unit that is sufficient if you can change the set up (enough knobs available). If I need just a distorted sound I use my Marshall Slash signature and nothing else.

To remain in theme:



One of my first attempt to develop B&W but it didn't come out too well.

[Xmas]

Making adjustments pre-photo requires you to commit to your convictions and accept the outcome regardless of the result. You have taken a leap of faith, trusting in your own judgement as a photographer. Adding a starburst effect in PP does not require any commitment from the artist as nothing is irreversible.

Well I normally use a rangefinder and single coated lenses and they will show starbursts on bright highlights all by themselves, but you only see these when you look at the negatives.

You also get flare, iris images etc.

Compression of high contrast scenes and flashing of negatives.

I'm hoping my new (sic) auto tukamar is comparable.

[Eyewanders]

Here's the difference. While effects can be added at any stage during the recording / mixing process, it takes an artist who 'knows their sound' to print FX to tape.

Not too long ago I worked with a band who were keen to record their EP in my all-analog studio. Although they had experience recording in digital studios before I knew they weren't ready for tape after seeing them play live on a couple of occasions. When it came time to lay down the guitar tracks it quickly became apparent that the guitarist didn't know his sound. After trying all kinds of FX pedals and reverbs, the guitarist gave up tinkering in the hope that I could make him sound like a rock star in mixdown using all kinds of PP.

While they could get away with it in the digital realm, there's no where to hide on tape.

This is an excellent point. The majority of my blurb above assumes and photog/musician that knows what they're doing. MOST CERTAINLY the rise and prevalence of digital photography PP tools, just as (at the same time) consumer-aimed computer-based multi-tracking and effects and even mastering, have allowed those artists (in both realms) that are average-to-no-good-at-all a very large space to *hide*, as you say. The "fix-it-in-post" approach.

In that I completely agree, and honestly it softens much of what I originally said... But it still holds true for anyone that actually has talent/knowledge.

[pathdoc]

While they could get away with it in the digital realm, there's no where to hide on tape.

George Martin could pull off miracles previously unheard of, but he was exceptional among analogue-era producers and he had the advantage of working with some very talented musicians who largely didn't need to hide.

[RR84]

George Martin could pull off miracles previously unheard of, but he was exceptional among analogue-era producers and he had the advantage of working with some very talented musicians who largely didn't need to hide.

In the 50's and 60's you had to be good if you wanted to step into a recording studio. On the other hand, many artists nowadays are rushing to record their music simply because they can, not because they're ready to make art.

Below is one of my favourite quotes on this topic from one of the best audio techs in the business:

"The truth tends to work better with these people (Frank Zappa, Stevie Wonder), since they spent a lifetime crafting a unique sound. I've seen the color thing used more commonly with acts that don't have the talent or ability of the great people. Some engineers are turning a mouse into a man, fattening up a track that's shitty and making a player sound better than he really is.The people I work with don't need to be better than they are — they just need the world to hear how good they are." - Jim Williams

[Cuthbert]

George Martin could pull off miracles previously unheard of, but he was exceptional among analogue-era producers and he had the advantage of working with some very talented musicians who largely didn't need to hide.

I would also add Eddie Kramer and Martin Birch. Mike Clink wasn't bad either, and as a rule the sound production with analogic equipment was superior to today's, not much because of the technology but because at that time people were more seriously interested in music and they wanted to hear a good sound, think about the acoustic guitars of Babe I'm gonna leave you (1969) and Amanda (1981).

Time for another and hopefully better pic:



LX, A 35-210mm, XP2+

Talking about analogic, I need to get rid of XP2, too much washed up look IMO.

[dsmithhfx]

Quite a few of the pictures appended to demonstrate why 'I don't do post nah nah nah' could really benefit from some thoughtful application of post.

Just fix it instead of blaming the particular film or development, or find better examples to support your case.

[Cuthbert]

Quite a few of the pictures appended to demonstrate why 'I don't do post nah nah nah' could really benefit from some thoughtful application of post.

Just fix it instead of blaming the particular film or development, or find better examples to support your case.

You see? You don't get the point of what I am trying to achieve.

I perfectly know I could adjust the flaws of my pics and show how good I am developing, or amazing is XP2 as a film, but I have decided not to do so because I think I should develop more my skills developing films on my own for instance, and try to understand which film is better for which lightning condition.

For instance this shot is taken with XP2 and I think it shows the good qualities of this film:



But when I'm aiming at the sky I get that "washed out" look, and that's fine, it's not my ideal film, other people may like it but I personal prefer Neopan 400:



Even if it's hard to master because very contrasty. Or Delta 400:



My fav used to be BW400CN.



I also like the grain of HP5 when I want that effect:



If I started to PP all these shot, making them grainless or grainy, changing the contrast, making them darker or lighter how could I come here and start to say "I like film X" or "I dislike film Y"? PP makes things look all the same, you can go to check out the various digital threads where they brag about the sharpness of their lenses...the shots are all the same!

[nickthetasmaniac]

M2, 50mm Summilux pre-asph and TMax100. V550 scans

EDIT - actually the first one was with my VM 28mm Ultron

[Jonathan Mac]

M2, 50mm Summilux pre-asph and TMax100. V550 scans

EDIT - actually the first one was with my VM 28mm Ultron

An excellent series.

[dsmithhfx]

You see? You don't get the point of what I am trying to achieve.

I perfectly know I could adjust the flaws of my pics and show how good I am developing, or amazing is XP2 as a film, but I have decided not to do so because I think I should develop more my skills developing films on my own for instance, and try to understand which film is better for which lightning condition.

For instance this shot is taken with XP2 and I think it shows the good qualities of this film:



But when I'm aiming at the sky I get that "washed out" look, and that's fine, it's not my ideal film, other people may like it but I personal prefer Neopan 400:



Even if it's hard to master because very contrasty. Or Delta 400:



My fav used to be BW400CN.



I also like the grain of HP5 when I want that effect:



If I started to PP all these shot, making them grainless or grainy, changing the contrast, making them darker or lighter how could I come here and start to say "I like film X" or "I dislike film Y"? PP makes things look all the same, you can go to check out the various digital threads where they brag about the sharpness of their lenses...the shots are all the same!

Well, generally speaking it appears you may have more of a problem with metering, and failing to anticipate the film characteristics, as well as not taking advantage of pp, even if you did it by strictly traditional darkroom methods e g. selecting suitable contrast grade of paper, dodging, burning etc. But instead you are leaving it to the 'black box' of your scanning method and rely on that rather hit-or- miss (mostly miss) outcome. Some of the more egregious problems could be fixed by very little pp work. What have you got to lose by trying?