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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hi
Generally speaking, it's much better to print a low contrast film image on to a higher contrast receiver paper then the other way around. This low contrast to high contrast printing has been used in the motion picture industry for years. I learned this first had when I found some old B&W slide images of a football game I photographed when I was in highschool. At the time I needed B&W slides so I contacted printed the negs to slides using kodalith and dektol. After several trys I got what I needed. Somehow though I kept the rejects which had very low contrast and image density. After 35 years I found those rejects in a box and scanned them on my Nikon Cool Scan. After contrast corrected by Photoshop the images looked great. Better then the original prints which were published in the yearbook. Larry |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hi
Generally speaking, it's much better to print a low contrast film image on to a higher contrast receiver paper then the other way around. This low contrast to high contrast printing has been used in the motion picture industry for years. I learned this first had when I found some old B&W slide images of a football game I photographed when I was in highschool. At the time I needed B&W slides so I contacted printed the negs to slides using kodalith and dektol. After several trys I got what I needed. Somehow though I kept the rejects which had very low contrast and image density. After 35 years I found those rejects in a box and scanned them on my Nikon Cool Scan. After contrast corrected by Photoshop the images looked great. Better then the original prints which were published in the yearbook. Larry |
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 |