Alright, I gotcha.

Like I said.........DO IT YOURSELF. LABS SUCK at black and white. Even when dealing with color it is a matter of finding the lab that sucks the least. Oh yeah, 80%of the b&w films out there probably would not exist if it weren't for good old George Eastman. and bsteph2069....Kodak has played a HUGE part in the development of Black and White as we know it. I strongly disagree with your above statement. but then again that is what makes this thread so fun.

I think the average lifespan of photographers back in the days of the daguerreotype was something like 25-35 years old. Heated mercury vapor is not a very cool method for developing images; ) Although I hear the grain and sharpness is amazing! (joke) Slynky...I may have spelled it wrong, but brush up on the origins of photography, and you will know what i am talking about......copper plates and heated mercury vapor mmmm, mmmmm.

One other thing..... the "proper" use of black and white films IMO, is meant to be customised to each particular photographers style, and exposure techniques, allowing the most control possible out of any film. color included. When you take a roll of black and white to be processed at your local one hour photo hut, or even a well respected custom lab, you are giving up a CRUCIAL part of that control. I mentioned earlier that development plays a key role in things such as contrast, grain, and even sharpness. You know what your intentions were when you took the shot. Your friendly lab attendant has NO idea of what your final vision is intended to be, so they merely do a generic development. It's tiny little differences in temperature, time, agitation,etc. that can make or break a roll of b&w. A difference of just one or two degrees, or a couple of seconds here and there can DRAMATICLY change the final look of the negs. improper agitation during development is a sure fire way to ruin a roll. hope i made some sense. I encourage EVERYONE to try to develop some b&w on there own some time before it has gone the way of the daguerreotype?

It's not always the film. Sometimes it is actually the Photographer ; ) The most important piece of equipment is the Lens. If that sucks, then 90% of the time you will be very unhappy with your results. T-Max 100 and 400 are SOME of the best black and white films out there. IMO BUT, one does need to run some ASA/ISO rating tests with these films to fine tune them to your exposure meter.(because they are ALL slighty different) Development/Developer is KEY. (HC-110 rules......for tmax...no need to buy that special "t-max" developer.....HC-110 can be made into dilutions for what ever your needs may be.....IMO the best all around film developer out there)

on a more serious note, I think any band would appreciate a cover of this quality. maybe crop it square, like an album cover?

These guys approve......so you know it's got to be good.

FIRE!

Sorry for being an eeeediot ; )

been watching Waaay too many old toons lately.

I like the first green image, You can really look at it for a while and keep seeing new things. the second one is cool too, but not quite as "emotive" as the green image. IMO. nice stuff.

Plus, when all else fails.....blame the assistant.

Ihave seen this effect, when living in Montana during the winter, never could pull of a good shot of it though. Looks like you had success. I really like the sureality of this image..."The Day After".....fallout yadda, yadda, yadda..... cool shot.

If you are really strong you can slam the cannister down on the top end and the bottom will pop off.....

Church key style bottle opener works the best.... ; )

No baryta in Ilford....or if they do, they are designed for "prolonged washing" I have accedently left kodak RC papers in the wash all day with no problems......

Alright, I got ahead of my self....Ilford fiber base papers have 2 different chemistries, and choice of 3 surfaces....you are right, Fiber base now only comes in double weight. (which is fine by me, considering I will wash my prints for up to 12 hours or more, and sometimes multiple times). They do have 2 different double weights though, but ther is not that much difference between the two. Ilford RC papers have a choice of 3 chemistries, and 5 surfaces that i mentioned earlier. Fiber base is better as far as permanence is concerned.

"....Ilford has two chemistries, warm and neutral, but only one weight and surface" I'm sorry, but I Still use Ilford Fiberbase papers today, There may only be 2 chemistries of warm and neutral, but there is a WIDE selection of surfaces and weights to choose from.....Alright..5 surfaces.... lets see... Glossy,Satin,Matte,Pearl,Semi-matte. Double weight, and Single, and even more for RC papers. Oh yeah, multigrade (ilford) has a great tonal range, It is like all of your contrast grades in one...matter of fact I believe Ilford multigrades have SEVEN "contrast grades" as opposed to the six different papers....And another nice thing is that you can go "between" those contrast levels for even more control... in essence giving you like 14 different contrast grades. And one final thing, Ilford fiber based papers accept toners quite well. (Selenium for extra contrast and permanence). I think Kodak still makes all of the "old school" individual contrast grade papers, in a couple of different weights. From my experience though, they do not accept toners as well. And If your exposures are off, they can make it a hell of a time trying to get an acceptable print. Want to find some of these papers?....drop me a line.