If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so. I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected making images look unnatural. Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development time has no effect on tonal distribution. This new claim agrees with something I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints. This I have proven through testing. As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll. Michael Scarpitti wrote: : "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl... : "PGG" schreef in bericht : newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com... : I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain. : However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable. : : : Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for : the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film : developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast. : That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this : for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain. : Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast. : 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." : And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit : personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my : APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I : was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4 : x 5 "! : : Third drawback: a little loss of speed. : Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous! -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I've done my best to stay out of this scarpitti troll but I find that I can no
longer do so. I know that Paul has responded to this post stating that scarpitti is misrepresenting the results of his test. While I believe that so I do have to note that about a month ago scarpitti was going around quoting a book from Kodak that he found claiming that development time should be kept the same. The reason he claimed was that by altering development time the midtones would be effected making images look unnatural. Now I see that he's changed his mind and has decided that altering development time has no effect on tonal distribution. This new claim agrees with something I, zone system users and even A.A. have known for years. I do know for a fact however that adjusting development time effects the highlights of the prints. This I have proven through testing. As usual with scarpitti the truth must always give way to the current troll. Michael Scarpitti wrote: : "Jan T" wrote in message li.nl... : "PGG" schreef in bericht : newsan.2004.09.10.20.47.28.229000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com... : I think it is a hard tradeoff to make. Developing less reduces grain. : However printing at a higher grade seems to makes grain more noticeable. : : : Exactly. But in the same degree? Maybe Kodak's solution was favorable for : the end result, that is: if the 'loss' of grain is greater on film : developped softly than the 'gain' of grain when increasing print contrast. : That's the point, and knowledgeable 35mm workers have practiced this : for decades. The loss of contrast is less than the reduction of grain. : Using condensers helps to restore much of the contrast. : 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." : And I noticed it in practice. Even on 35 mm I prefer (you see, it's a bit : personal too) a real 'N' development and a print on 2-2,5. Since I had my : APX100 calibrated (in ID-11), my prints got that extra twinkle. Imagine I : was once asked (by a 4 x 5" user BTW) if a certain picture was taken with 4 : x 5 "! : : Third drawback: a little loss of speed. : Yes, but not much. Maybe 1/2 stop. My prints are gorgeous! -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message ... "Jim Phelps" wrote in message ... "jjs" wrote in message ... "Uranium Committee" wrote in message m... Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it. Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head... You talking to me? Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message ... "Jim Phelps" wrote in message ... "jjs" wrote in message ... "Uranium Committee" wrote in message m... Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it. Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head... You talking to me? Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message ... "Jim Phelps" wrote in message ... "jjs" wrote in message ... "Uranium Committee" wrote in message m... Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it. Might I suggest your Ass. It's right next to your head... You talking to me? Sorry, No. I added it to the end of your's as a direction for Scar pity. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message m... Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it. I said 'one of the best', for the record. But you also said: "Because I know more than almost anybody on the planet about 35mm monochrome." The "...almost anybody..." kinda limits the field, doesn't it. How can you make this claim when you've never processed Tech-Pan, used a Pyro developer, and don't realize Rodinal gives a unique and useful look to a negative to achieve a desired result. Grain isn't bad if it fits the vision of the photographer That's just three off the top of my head that you need to go out and learn before you begin to write the forward on that rehashed Kodak digest you're planning. I'd even bet you've never compounded your own chemicals or experimented with different formulas just to see the results to find out if it was something useful. Yeah, you know alot about 35mm monochrome, but very little about monochrome photography. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message m... Humility. Tattoo that word somewhere so you can see it. I said 'one of the best', for the record. But you also said: "Because I know more than almost anybody on the planet about 35mm monochrome." The "...almost anybody..." kinda limits the field, doesn't it. How can you make this claim when you've never processed Tech-Pan, used a Pyro developer, and don't realize Rodinal gives a unique and useful look to a negative to achieve a desired result. Grain isn't bad if it fits the vision of the photographer That's just three off the top of my head that you need to go out and learn before you begin to write the forward on that rehashed Kodak digest you're planning. I'd even bet you've never compounded your own chemicals or experimented with different formulas just to see the results to find out if it was something useful. Yeah, you know alot about 35mm monochrome, but very little about monochrome photography. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com... (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news: My prints are gorgeous! Now THATS funny! Do you want to see one, up close and live? Oh please grace me with your mastery of printing! And why the name change...to get past peoples kill filters??? ROFLMAO! |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Butzi) wrote in message . com... I'VE PLACED MY RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE READING EASIER. snip And you're a Kodakazi, so there! :P nener nener neener Stop relying of 1960 published material and join us int he 21st century. Things have changed for both Big Yellow and you since your award winning days as a yearbook photographer 35 years ago. lol |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Removing 35mm mask on Durst M606? | Luigi de Guzman | In The Darkroom | 4 | March 1st 04 04:09 AM |
split grade printing - can it be done with only G5 +G0 filters? | Jules Flynn | In The Darkroom | 3 | February 7th 04 04:46 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | APS Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |
FA: NIKON LS-4500AF HiEnd LargeFormatFilm Scanner | bleanne | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | November 27th 03 07:34 AM |