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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Kodak Polymax was designed to work with T-Max film. Polycontrast is for conventional film. See? There's something I knew and you didn't. Ilford papers are not designed for T-Max films to the best of my knowledge. Why would they be? Get your info straight before posteing here, idiot. So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. And just FYI, Kodak won't be selling Polymax II in the US anymore. Do you know the curve shape of the replacement? Given your response, I guess not. It, Polycontrast IV, has less highlight contrast than Polymax II or Polycontrast III. What was that you said? Oh yeah, "Get your info straight before posteing (nice spelling, btw.) here, idiot." -Peter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ... I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter Michael Scarpitti wrote: Bull****. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a U-shaped curve. moron. Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY outdoors, must be magic. In any case thank you for continually acting like an ass. That way newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for very long. Peter P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. 'Straight' isn't 'S'-shaped, now is it? Nor is it 'u' shaped as you said, now is it? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Photography is not and cannot be art. That's a good comment to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that it'd be a good idea to follow your advice. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ... Michael Scarpitti wrote: Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest (highlights). If you use a staining developer, use GRADED paper only. Duh. I just said that PMK lowers highlight contrast with vc paper. The stain acts much like a green filter. About using PMK with VC paper, you must know much more about it than Gordon Hutchings, who developed PMK, wrote a carefully detailed book about it, and makes better prints than Mikey can even dream of. I'd sure like to see his 35mm street work. You make me laugh. I've seen some of Mikeys 35mm "Zoo", oops, I mean "street" work. What crap! Mikey, maybe you should try pouring syrup on that polar bear. Oh, so a man jumping over a puddle represents a more important historical event? On what grounds is that true? The lighting in HCB's puddle-jumper is not even interesting. When did I ever say that HCB "puddle-jumper" is a photograph that I admire? I don't particularly like it, but in any case it's worlds better than anything that Mikey has shown. Delta films have S-shaped curves. Ilford has not had to change their papers like Kodak had to, because the Delta films do not suffer from the problems that T-Max films do. Get your facts straight. You've clearly never used Ilford RC paper. Have you run sensitometric tests with it? I have, and you're FOS, as usual. -Peter |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Kodak Polymax was designed to work with T-Max film. Polycontrast is for conventional film. See? There's something I knew and you didn't. Ilford papers are not designed for T-Max films to the best of my knowledge. Why would they be? Get your info straight before posteing here, idiot. So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. I do, all the time. It looks fine with conventional films such as Neopan and with Delta 400. What evidence do you have that Ilford would care about how their paper matches up with Kodak films? And just FYI, Kodak won't be selling Polymax II in the US anymore. Do you know the curve shape of the replacement? Given your response, I guess not. It, Polycontrast IV, has less highlight contrast than Polymax II or Polycontrast III. What was that you said? Oh yeah, "Get your info straight before posteing (nice spelling, btw.) here, idiot." As far as Kodak is concerned, I wish them well. They'll need all the help they can get. -Peter |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. I do, all the time. It looks fine with conventional films such as Neopan and with Delta 400. What evidence do you have that Ilford would care about how their paper matches up with Kodak films? I never said that Ilford would care about their paper matching up with Kodak films, nor did I say that one couldn't get nice results with Ilford RC. What I said was the Ilford RC has a long toe. In other words it has lowered highlight contrast. Since that's the case, one *might* want to use a film with a fairly straight "curve", depending on the highlight rendition that one wants. You really don't care at all about getting what other people say correct, do you? You commit the Strawman fallacy, time, after time, after time... -Peter |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. I do, all the time. It looks fine with conventional films such as Neopan and with Delta 400. What evidence do you have that Ilford would care about how their paper matches up with Kodak films? I never said that Ilford would care about their paper matching up with Kodak films, nor did I say that one couldn't get nice results with Ilford RC. What I said was the Ilford RC has a long toe. In other words it has lowered highlight contrast. Since that's the case, one *might* want to use a film with a fairly straight "curve", depending on the highlight rendition that one wants. You really don't care at all about getting what other people say correct, do you? You commit the Strawman fallacy, time, after time, after time... -Peter |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ... I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter Michael Scarpitti wrote: Bull****. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a U-shaped curve. moron. Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY outdoors, must be magic. In any case thank you for continually acting like an ass. That way newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for very long. Peter P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. 'Straight' isn't 'S'-shaped, now is it? Nor is it 'u' shaped as you said, now is it? It depends on the developer/dilution whether it's straight or slightly U-shaped. The point is, that it's not 'S'-shaped. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ... Michael Scarpitti wrote: Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest (highlights). If you use a staining developer, use GRADED paper only. Duh. I just said that PMK lowers highlight contrast with vc paper. The stain acts much like a green filter. About using PMK with VC paper, you must know much more about it than Gordon Hutchings, who developed PMK, wrote a carefully detailed book about it, and makes better prints than Mikey can even dream of. I'd sure like to see his 35mm street work. You make me laugh. I've seen some of Mikeys 35mm "Zoo", oops, I mean "street" work. What crap! Mikey, maybe you should try pouring syrup on that polar bear. Oh, so a man jumping over a puddle represents a more important historical event? On what grounds is that true? The lighting in HCB's puddle-jumper is not even interesting. When did I ever say that HCB "puddle-jumper" is a photograph that I admire? I don't particularly like it, but in any case it's worlds better than anything that Mikey has shown. You wish. It's nothing special at all. Delta films have S-shaped curves. Ilford has not had to change their papers like Kodak had to, because the Delta films do not suffer from the problems that T-Max films do. Get your facts straight. You've clearly never used Ilford RC paper. Oh, so you have been in my darkroom? What are all those packages of MG IV then? Have you run sensitometric tests with it? I have, and you're FOS, as usual. No, I make prints, dumbass, I don't run tests. WHY THE **** would Ilford adapt their paper to T-Max? Ilford Delta films have quite a different curve shape from T-Max films. You're impossibly dense. Go jump out of a thirty-story building and do us all a favor. -Peter |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: Photography is not and cannot be art. That's a good comment to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that it'd be a good idea to follow your advice. Of course, if you're so deluded to think that photography is 'fine art' go right ahead. I'll order the Thorazine right away... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fridge and heat problems | Edwin | In The Darkroom | 15 | July 7th 04 04:43 AM |