On my web page, I quite clearly state : "Several questions remain - do
this results apply to other films as well? TMX in TMax-RS developer
produces a very linear film characteristic curve. If the film curve
changes shape with changes in development, then there would also be
the effect of the change in film curve to factor in. Different VC
papers have different tonal distributions, and different changes in
curve shape as you adjust contrast. "

I then go on to say "It seems unlikely that the results here can be
generalized to other films, film developers, etc."

You have no basis for that statement. You have not tested other
materials.

Yes, I've not tested other materials, or at least I haven't published
my results of testing other materials, which to you is exactly the
same thing.

But since different films, developers, and papers all produce changes
in the characteristic curves of the films and papers, it seems
unlikely to me that the specific changes (or lack of changes) I've
documented will occur with, say, a film with a pronounced s-shape H&D
curve, or with highly compensating development, or with a film with an
upswept film curve like Plus-X.

So let me ask you, since you seem so enamored of your pet theory -
where are YOUR tests? Until you have some data, I don't see why
anyone would bother listening to you. And without any data of your
own, you sure as hell are in no position to challenge my conclusions,
nor are you in any position to chastise me when I carefully avoid
generalizing on the basis of very limited testing, nor are you in any
way entitled to chastise me for having done limited testing rather
than extensive testing.

You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish.
I could, yes. But I haven't, and my conclusions are based on the
tests I've done.

You, also, could do the tests. Why don't you? Go do the damn tests,
write up the results, and people will pay attention to you.

But what's important is that what tests you HAVE performed
suport the principle of reducing development times and using harder
paper, and since such reduced times benefit the small negative
overall, this is to be encouraged, even if the tonal distribution is
not as similar as what you have shown on this particular combination.

I don't give a rat's ass about your apparent agenda to get everyone on
the planet to reduce the development of their 35mm B&W negatives.

What I do care about, though, is your consistent attempt to take the
text off my web page and claim it supports your agenda by adding
conclusions to it which my data don't actually support, that I haven't
made, which I specifically state on the page I am NOT making. In
particular I don't want you attributing those generalizations to me.

If you want data to support your theory, go out and run the damn tests
yourself.


I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the results of my
testing.

I did not 'misrepresent' the results of your testing.

You wrote, and I am quoting directly
Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution.
when in fact, I state quite clearly that I don't believe that will be
the case, that my data don't support that generalization, etc.

It's damn annoying to have to correct you constantly.

But Paul, you are not the first to have known this. I have known for
35 years, at least, that 35mm film should be developed to a softer
contrast and printed on harder paper, and than sheet film can handle
more development. This is not 'news', at least not to me. You have
simply taken the time to explore this systematically. Kodak's
statement is clear enough:

Look, I really don't give a damn how long you've known it. I just
want you to stop asserting that my web page says something which it
DOES NOT SAY, AND IN FACT GOES TO SOME LENGTH TO POINT OUT
SPECIFICALLY THAT IT DOES NOT SAY.

I don't claim, as you assert I have done, anything even vaguely
resembling 'exploring this systematically' for the simple reason that
I have neither the time nor the interest to actually do anything that
extensive with it. I had very specific questions about a very
specific set of materials, and I did very specific and very limited
testing. I wrote that up, making very specific and limited
conclusions, and I don't want to be viewed by people as trying to make
a generalized, authoritative statement on this crap on because you
think that a limited set of tests I banged out in one day somehow
should be generalized and think it will be more persuasive if you
attribute that erroneous generalization to me.

Do your own damn tests, and put them on your own damn web page, and
you can make whatever conclusions you like - I don't actually care
about you, your theory of 'softer negatives are good', or anything
else you do as long as you don't continually misrepresent what I've
said.