(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
"Jan T" wrote in message li.nl...

Second drawback: tonality: a negative developped to be printed on #2 and
printed on #2 has a different tonality than a negative wich is developped
softer and printed on a higher grade. Don't ask me why, but Adams knew why.
And I believe Ralph W. Lambrecht has given a good explanation in "Way Beyond
Monochrome".

It really should make no significant difference. See below.

See:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

Acording to Paul Butzi, developing less and printing with higher
contrast paper gives essentially the same tonal distribution. He
states:

Paul Butzi: "Let's start with the biggie - Tonal distribution. I
believe that if you closely examine the scans above, you'll see
differences in the tonal distribution of each print. Remember, the
original scene (the step wedge) was exactly the same for each print,
so any differences we find are from the changes in development and
print contrast.

Paul Butzi: "From visual examination, the print from N-2 development
and the print from N development are identical in tonal distribution.
The contrast of the highlights and lowlights, and the contrast and
tone of the mid-tones, are all the same."

Please bear in mind that my results are quite specifically linked to
one film (Tmax-100) and to two specific papers, Kodak PolyMax IIrc and
Ilford MGIV fb.

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. You could perform the test on other films and papers if you
wish. 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.
One would be advised to try different papers if the first tests are
unsatisfactory. I have been unable to get Agfa Brovira to work well
with Ilford films in a condenser enlarger, no matter how I developed
the film. The highlights simply would not print. That paper is gone
now, anyway, so it's no big loss. Ilford Gallerie works splendidly, I
might add.

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

I did not 'misrepresent' the results of your testing. I cited it as a
counter-example to a claim that someone made that 'tonality' would
suffer. As in all things related to the negative-positive process,
some combos work better than others. Shortening the development time
does not change the curve SHAPE that much. The main problem would be
the curve shape of the paper being used. This is more likely to be
vary by the brand, not the filter being used.

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:

"The graininess of both negatives and prints increases with increasing
gradient of the material on which they are made. When the gradient of
the negative material is low, prints are normally made on a paper
which has a high gradient and vice versa, so what may be gained by
holding one gradient down would be largely lost by the high gradient
of the other. IT IS USUALLY TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT A LOW GRADIENT IN THE
NEGATIVE MATERIAL AND A CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH GRADIENT IN THE PAPER IS
MORE FAVORABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION. (My emphasis)

This statement by Kodak is unequivocal: there is something to be
gained by using a softer negative and a harder paper from the
standpoint of graininess (and, of course, overall definition as well).

You may note that Kodak's portrait papers (Opal, Ektalure, etc) were
available in one grade, and according to Kodak, they were close to
grade 3, NOT grade 2.