Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO!

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:


I am a member of a LF group here in the midwest we have a website at:
www.midwestlargeformat.com. There is also a mailing list for the group. Send
me an
email and I will be happy to add anyone that is interested. Unlike the flame
wars here
on the Usenet there is limited tolerance to flame wars and personal insults
are not
tolerated.

This is one of the major advantages of mailing lists over usenet groups.
One of my favorites is the "Pure Silver" list (join at
http:www.tundraware.com). While there is a very strong LF contingent,
MF and 35mm are also well represented. The list administrator has a "one
strike and your out" rule with regards to personal attacks, which makes
for much higher Signal/Noise ratio and a pleasant environment for
photographic discussions.

--

-tony

http://www.shapesandshadows.com

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:52:56 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:


"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
. com...
Frank Pittel wrote in message
...
[... see the post ...]

That's incompatible with the facts as presented in the book. The
author states that mid-tones ARE the most important, based on
observations by many viewers.

First, the ZS allows an individual to pursue what his _particular_ concerns
are. If an individual wants to aim for mid-tones and let the rest fall where
it may, so be it!

The zoan sistum was devised without any
such research, and is thus dogmatic, i.e., not based on experience but
on abstract thinking, which of course may or may not be relevant.

True. The ZS is largely useful to persons with individual esthetic nuances.
So what?

So what!? You didn't answer Mr. Scarpitti reponsively here. Shame on
you.

The answer is that Adams was a very successful, commercial
photographer who ddi a lot of experimanting, scientific , of course,
and real life tests with photographic materials. From all the reading
I have done, I remeber that Adams clearly held the position that the
Zone Zstem was an adjunct to your own testing. Call it a guide, but
never dogma.

At a later point in time than the publication of the accuracy
challenged Kodak book that Scarpitti reveres, Kodak worked with Adams
to incorporate ZS concerns into Kodak film business decisions.

So Scarpitti is even wrong when he seems to find backup from the
Yellow God.

[...]

No, it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that those who knew what
they were talking about retired and died, leaving a vacuum which the
ZoNazis filled. The 'seizure of power'. Ring any bells? Ansel Hitler,
Minor Goebbels, et al...

Way off base. Certainly there are evangelists for the ZS. Complex
procedures yield easily to minutae, creating a breeding ground for practice
and opinion of catholic proportions. But take what you need and leave the
rest.


Or just leave.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
So, the very clearly stated piece by Kodak, which acknowledges the
MOTIVES for variable film development and DISMISSES them as mistaken,
means nothing to you? Then you're STUPID....

A writing that is almost 50 years old!

Heh dumbass, when do you think adumbs was devising his zoan sistum?

Hint: MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO!

The author of this booklet acknowledges specifically that some people
vary their film development, but assert in plain words that this is
poor practice and gives sound reasons why.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
So, the very clearly stated piece by Kodak, which acknowledges the
MOTIVES for variable film development and DISMISSES them as mistaken,
means nothing to you? Then you're STUPID....

A writing that is almost 50 years old!

Heh dumbass, when do you think adumbs was devising his zoan sistum?

Hint: MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO!

The author of this booklet acknowledges specifically that some people
vary their film development, but assert in plain words that this is
poor practice and gives sound reasons why.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
So, the very clearly stated piece by Kodak, which acknowledges the
MOTIVES for variable film development and DISMISSES them as mistaken,
means nothing to you? Then you're STUPID....

A writing that is almost 50 years old!

Heh dumbass, when do you think adumbs was devising his zoan sistum?

Hint: MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO!

The author of this booklet acknowledges specifically that some people
vary their film development, but assert in plain words that this is
poor practice and gives sound reasons why.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
Frank Pittel wrote in message
...
[... see the post ...]

That's incompatible with the facts as presented in the book. The
author states that mid-tones ARE the most important, based on
observations by many viewers.

First, the ZS allows an individual to pursue what his _particular_ concerns
are. If an individual wants to aim for mid-tones and let the rest fall where
it may, so be it!

Did you read the quote or not? No matter what you WANT to believe,
human perception is sensitive mid-tones above all else. Distorted
mid-tones are blatantly obvious, and I can see them (make that SMELL
them) a mile away.


The zoan sistum was devised without any
such research, and is thus dogmatic, i.e., not based on experience but
on abstract thinking, which of course may or may not be relevant.

True. The ZS is largely useful to persons with individual esthetic nuances.
So what?

Read the quote again until you understand.

[...]

No, it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that those who knew what
they were talking about retired and died, leaving a vacuum which the
ZoNazis filled. The 'seizure of power'. Ring any bells? Ansel Hitler,
Minor Goebbels, et al...

Way off base. Certainly there are evangelists for the ZS.

You mean klansmen....

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
Frank Pittel wrote in message
...
[... see the post ...]

That's incompatible with the facts as presented in the book. The
author states that mid-tones ARE the most important, based on
observations by many viewers.

First, the ZS allows an individual to pursue what his _particular_ concerns
are. If an individual wants to aim for mid-tones and let the rest fall where
it may, so be it!

Did you read the quote or not? No matter what you WANT to believe,
human perception is sensitive mid-tones above all else. Distorted
mid-tones are blatantly obvious, and I can see them (make that SMELL
them) a mile away.


The zoan sistum was devised without any
such research, and is thus dogmatic, i.e., not based on experience but
on abstract thinking, which of course may or may not be relevant.

True. The ZS is largely useful to persons with individual esthetic nuances.
So what?

Read the quote again until you understand.

[...]

No, it doesn't. The fact of the matter is that those who knew what
they were talking about retired and died, leaving a vacuum which the
ZoNazis filled. The 'seizure of power'. Ring any bells? Ansel Hitler,
Minor Goebbels, et al...

Way off base. Certainly there are evangelists for the ZS.

You mean klansmen....

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What does it profit Kodak to offer bad advice? Why would Kodak spend
the time and money they did to conduct these studies, asking observers
to evaluate the images made with variable film development and
constant film development?

I am not faulting Kodak, per se! Let's look at the term of your question:
"observers". What is the nature of the observers and what is their goal?
What do they consider good or adequate?

Kodak has a position to ignore the so-called Zone System because it could
not possibly fit into a standard model for profitable commerce. The ZS
requires tedious custom proceedures which are highly dependent upon each
element of picture making (which light meter, what color light, which paper,
developer, film, enlarger, contact and so-forth) and the ZS is tightly
coupled with personal preferences and interpretation regardless of how
strident one might make the procedure. In a word, the ZS is impossible for a
commercial product unless focused upon a _specific market_, _specific
observers_, and then it would be a highly rarified one certainly not
profitable to a very large publicly held company.

So Kodak offers the products which rely upon their recommended procedures
which achieve good results as defined by the market-definition of 'good', or
'professional' which fit their mass market.

Read this again:

Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with
the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is
interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the
commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of
his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this
means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal
distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the
characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these
conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives
about one stop more than the average portrait negative. Thus, the
recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected
light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure
level.

It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, [there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.] (Italics in
original)

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part [it is actually the middle
tones which are most important of all.] (Italics in original) Middle
tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and
shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are
those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of
the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What does it profit Kodak to offer bad advice? Why would Kodak spend
the time and money they did to conduct these studies, asking observers
to evaluate the images made with variable film development and
constant film development?

I am not faulting Kodak, per se! Let's look at the term of your question:
"observers". What is the nature of the observers and what is their goal?
What do they consider good or adequate?

Kodak has a position to ignore the so-called Zone System because it could
not possibly fit into a standard model for profitable commerce. The ZS
requires tedious custom proceedures which are highly dependent upon each
element of picture making (which light meter, what color light, which paper,
developer, film, enlarger, contact and so-forth) and the ZS is tightly
coupled with personal preferences and interpretation regardless of how
strident one might make the procedure. In a word, the ZS is impossible for a
commercial product unless focused upon a _specific market_, _specific
observers_, and then it would be a highly rarified one certainly not
profitable to a very large publicly held company.

So Kodak offers the products which rely upon their recommended procedures
which achieve good results as defined by the market-definition of 'good', or
'professional' which fit their mass market.

Read this again:

Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with
the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is
interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the
commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of
his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this
means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal
distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the
characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these
conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives
about one stop more than the average portrait negative. Thus, the
recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected
light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure
level.

It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, [there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.] (Italics in
original)

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part [it is actually the middle
tones which are most important of all.] (Italics in original) Middle
tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and
shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are
those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of
the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What does it profit Kodak to offer bad advice? Why would Kodak spend
the time and money they did to conduct these studies, asking observers
to evaluate the images made with variable film development and
constant film development?

I am not faulting Kodak, per se! Let's look at the term of your question:
"observers". What is the nature of the observers and what is their goal?
What do they consider good or adequate?

Kodak has a position to ignore the so-called Zone System because it could
not possibly fit into a standard model for profitable commerce. The ZS
requires tedious custom proceedures which are highly dependent upon each
element of picture making (which light meter, what color light, which paper,
developer, film, enlarger, contact and so-forth) and the ZS is tightly
coupled with personal preferences and interpretation regardless of how
strident one might make the procedure. In a word, the ZS is impossible for a
commercial product unless focused upon a _specific market_, _specific
observers_, and then it would be a highly rarified one certainly not
profitable to a very large publicly held company.

So Kodak offers the products which rely upon their recommended procedures
which achieve good results as defined by the market-definition of 'good', or
'professional' which fit their mass market.

Read this again:

Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with
the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is
interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the
commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of
his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this
means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal
distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the
characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these
conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives
about one stop more than the average portrait negative. Thus, the
recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected
light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure
level.

It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, [there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.] (Italics in
original)

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part [it is actually the middle
tones which are most important of all.] (Italics in original) Middle
tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and
shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are
those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of
the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.