Absolute beginner needs advivce

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...

: There were still a number of press photoraphers using LF during the
early
: 60s.
: Even then they were the "old" timers and for the most part the pros
had
: changed.

: I believe I used the agravating term "real" photojournalists.

Actually use used the term "real" newspaper people. :-)

What EVER! (Did I do that right?)

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...

: There were still a number of press photoraphers using LF during the
early
: 60s.
: Even then they were the "old" timers and for the most part the pros
had
: changed.

: I believe I used the agravating term "real" photojournalists.

Actually use used the term "real" newspaper people. :-)

What EVER! (Did I do that right?)

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Shelley wrote:
: : I'm still trying to figure out why I need to use a "press" film with a
: "press"
: : camera. Is there are reason why Tmax-100, Tmax-400 or even Tri-x wouldn't
: work
: : with a "press" camera?
:
: : You can stop trying to figure it out. You don't need to use a press film in
: : your press camera, you can use any film you like as long as it's the right
: : size and is still being manufactured.
:
: Someone needs to tell that to scarpitti. He seems to be under the delusion that
: you need to use "press" film with press cameras.


: If you don't use a 'press film', and your exposure is off, you'll have
: a much harder time printing the negatives.

That differs from any type of photography in any type of format in what way??
I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

: Quick! There comes Princess Grace from behind that car! Focus
: (rangefinder)! Remove dark slide. Shoot! Replace bulb! Change dark
: slide. holder! Focus! Shoot! etc...

Focus the camera to the hyper focal length and save the trouble of focusing.
Any photographer worth his or her weight in salt knows their equipment which
includes the guide number of the flash bulb they're using. This is independent
on the format used. I am waiting for proof from you that the "press" films you
mentioned have greater exposure latitude then say the Tmax films.

: 'Press' films had wider latitude than studio films. If a single type
: of emulsion was equally satisfactory for all purposes, it would have
: not been necessary for film makers to manufacture separate products
: for portraiture, press, and studio work. All of the major companies
: (Ansco, DuPont, Kodak, etc.) designated some of their films as 'press
: films'. Those films have a significant shoulder.

You're going to have to provide some proof for your statements. There are a
number of people on this group (all with credibility, which is more then the none
that you have) that have stated that the prime characteristic of "press" films
was their ability to be developed at high temperatures which translates into
short devevelopment times. An important characteristic considering the short
turn around time available for the press. Far more reasonable then the blather
that you put forward.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Shelley wrote:
: : I'm still trying to figure out why I need to use a "press" film with a
: "press"
: : camera. Is there are reason why Tmax-100, Tmax-400 or even Tri-x wouldn't
: work
: : with a "press" camera?
:
: : You can stop trying to figure it out. You don't need to use a press film in
: : your press camera, you can use any film you like as long as it's the right
: : size and is still being manufactured.
:
: Someone needs to tell that to scarpitti. He seems to be under the delusion that
: you need to use "press" film with press cameras.


: If you don't use a 'press film', and your exposure is off, you'll have
: a much harder time printing the negatives.

That differs from any type of photography in any type of format in what way??
I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

: Quick! There comes Princess Grace from behind that car! Focus
: (rangefinder)! Remove dark slide. Shoot! Replace bulb! Change dark
: slide. holder! Focus! Shoot! etc...

Focus the camera to the hyper focal length and save the trouble of focusing.
Any photographer worth his or her weight in salt knows their equipment which
includes the guide number of the flash bulb they're using. This is independent
on the format used. I am waiting for proof from you that the "press" films you
mentioned have greater exposure latitude then say the Tmax films.

: 'Press' films had wider latitude than studio films. If a single type
: of emulsion was equally satisfactory for all purposes, it would have
: not been necessary for film makers to manufacture separate products
: for portraiture, press, and studio work. All of the major companies
: (Ansco, DuPont, Kodak, etc.) designated some of their films as 'press
: films'. Those films have a significant shoulder.

You're going to have to provide some proof for your statements. There are a
number of people on this group (all with credibility, which is more then the none
that you have) that have stated that the prime characteristic of "press" films
was their ability to be developed at high temperatures which translates into
short devevelopment times. An important characteristic considering the short
turn around time available for the press. Far more reasonable then the blather
that you put forward.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: jjs wrote:
: : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : ...
:
: : There were still a number of press photoraphers using LF during the
: early
: : 60s.
: : Even then they were the "old" timers and for the most part the pros
: had
: : changed.
:
: : I believe I used the agravating term "real" photojournalists.
:
: Actually use used the term "real" newspaper people. :-)

: What EVER! (Did I do that right?)

You got that right. :-)

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: jjs wrote:
: : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : ...
:
: : There were still a number of press photoraphers using LF during the
: early
: : 60s.
: : Even then they were the "old" timers and for the most part the pros
: had
: : changed.
:
: : I believe I used the agravating term "real" photojournalists.
:
: Actually use used the term "real" newspaper people. :-)

: What EVER! (Did I do that right?)

You got that right. :-)

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

I find it most difficult to read your posts, as you don't trim down the
messages.


In article iPn_c.2245$vI2.1406@trnddc02,
"Shelley" wrote:

Sorry, I can't help with that, I put him on my blocked sender list a year or
more ago.


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I find it most difficult to read your posts, as you don't trim down the
messages.


In article iPn_c.2245$vI2.1406@trnddc02,
"Shelley" wrote:

Sorry, I can't help with that, I put him on my blocked sender list a year or
more ago.


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I find it most difficult to read your posts, as you don't trim down the
messages.


In article iPn_c.2245$vI2.1406@trnddc02,
"Shelley" wrote:

Sorry, I can't help with that, I put him on my blocked sender list a year or
more ago.


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Shelley wrote:
: : I'm still trying to figure out why I need to use a "press" film with a
"press"
: : camera. Is there are reason why Tmax-100, Tmax-400 or even Tri-x wouldn't
work
: : with a "press" camera?

: : You can stop trying to figure it out. You don't need to use a press film in
: : your press camera, you can use any film you like as long as it's the right
: : size and is still being manufactured.
:
: Someone needs to tell that to scarpitti. He seems to be under the delusion that
: you need to use "press" film with press cameras.


: If you don't use a 'press film', and your exposure is off, you'll have
: a much harder time printing the negatives.

That differs from any type of photography in any type of format in what way??
I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

: Quick! There comes Princess Grace from behind that car! Focus
: (rangefinder)! Remove dark slide. Shoot! Replace bulb! Change dark
: slide. holder! Focus! Shoot! etc...

Focus the camera to the hyper focal length and save the trouble of focusing.
Any photographer worth his or her weight in salt knows their equipment which
includes the guide number of the flash bulb they're using. This is independent
on the format used. I am waiting for proof from you that the "press" films you
mentioned have greater exposure latitude then say the Tmax films.

Just look at old materials, such as 'Negative Making for Professional
Photographers" (1956) and 'Kodak Films for Black-and-White
Photography' (the copy I have is from 1958.) They have H&D curves
along with descriptions. Although some films are described as suited
for a variety of uses, some are clearly described as specialized.

Royal Pan Sheet Film (ISO 400, listed as ASA 200 before the change to
the safety factor in 1960) is described as a 'general-purpose film for
all types of indoor and outdoor illumination, for all kinds of
photography where high speed and low graininess are needed'. The H&D
curve shows a clear shoulder.

Tri-X Panchromatic Sheet Film (ISO 320, listed as ASA 200 before the
change to the safety factor in 1960) is described as suited for
'portaiture and for commercial and illustrative work'. The H&D curve
does not show a shoulder.

Portrait Panchromatic Sheet Film (ISO 100, listed as ASA 50 before the
change to the safety factor in 1960) is described as suited for
'portraiture by daylight or tungsten light, landscape work, and
general photography of colored objects when accurate rendering of
colors in tones of gray is required'. The H&D curve shows a slight
shoulder.



: 'Press' films had wider latitude than studio films. If a single type
: of emulsion was equally satisfactory for all purposes, it would have
: not been necessary for film makers to manufacture separate products
: for portraiture, press, and studio work. All of the major companies
: (Ansco, DuPont, Kodak, etc.) designated some of their films as 'press
: films'. Those films have a significant shoulder.

You're going to have to provide some proof for your statements. There are a
number of people on this group (all with credibility, which is more then the none
that you have) that have stated that the prime characteristic of "press" films
was their ability to be developed at high temperatures which translates into
short devevelopment times. An important characteristic considering the short
turn around time available for the press. Far more reasonable then the blather
that you put forward.


All films had essentially the same tolerance or intolerance to high
temperatures. What made press films what they were was the emulsion
contrast characteristics (H&D curve).