Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

Address the goddamn post, asshole!

Mike,

You troll. You want me to address the post? However, the first sentence
says why I should not.

An asshole, I think not. However, you are in need of some deep, inner
self review. Either that or you should pound sand in your blissful state of
mind.

Quote something recent if you would, please. Film technology has
advanced, unlike you.

Even my Kodak Darkroom Dataguide, 5th Edition, First 1976 Printing states
in the discussion on the Developing Dial (last paragraph): "This method
gives the user a way of incorporating adjustments for the
contrast-controlling factors into his working procedures." Seems to me that
Kodak in this edition of the DDg acknowledges the use of time for the
controlling of contrast depending upon the users desires. Never mind the
selection of the developer itself. And that's what the Zone System is about
(to a degree, but there's so much more to the ZS).

No, I do not want to be ignorant, but will in the same sentence admit
there are things I am ignorant about. Like how to design Rockets. But
then, I've never had a need to learn.

Why don't you open that shut mind of yours and stop being so "Blissful".

Now, who's an asshole, Mikey? If we took a vote, I guess I'd lose...

Jim P [but you know my last name don't you]

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What do you mean? Would you prefer to remain ignorant?

No! On the contrary. I for one have begun to learn and understand the Zone
System. I for one have become familiar with it's workings and techniques.
I for one have tried it and seen it's results. I for one do not hide behind
outdated and changed information. I for one have NOT remained ignorant.

Remember, the word Ignorant has it's root in the word Ignore. Basically,
'To Ignore Knowledge". Usually used to describe the lack of knowledge [in a
subject area]. It is not meant to describe lack of intelligence and
therefore wrongly seen as insultive. The word to describe a lack of
intelligence is "Stupid". A person that is a "Stupid Ignorant" would be a
person who is both uncaring about learning and does not posses the ability
to learn. Hmmm....

Go now, and be blissful...

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What do you mean? Would you prefer to remain ignorant?

No! On the contrary. I for one have begun to learn and understand the Zone
System. I for one have become familiar with it's workings and techniques.
I for one have tried it and seen it's results. I for one do not hide behind
outdated and changed information. I for one have NOT remained ignorant.

Remember, the word Ignorant has it's root in the word Ignore. Basically,
'To Ignore Knowledge". Usually used to describe the lack of knowledge [in a
subject area]. It is not meant to describe lack of intelligence and
therefore wrongly seen as insultive. The word to describe a lack of
intelligence is "Stupid". A person that is a "Stupid Ignorant" would be a
person who is both uncaring about learning and does not posses the ability
to learn. Hmmm....

Go now, and be blissful...

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Interestingly enough I can't seem to find this book for sale. The only refernece
: I can find is to a long out of print book from 1952. It's clear from reading new
: publications from Kodak that they have come to see the light.

: No, perhaps those who knew what the hell they were talking about
: retired or died, dumbass....

It's more likely that while the engineers were working with Ansel Adams during the '50s
on the Zone system they came to realize the value of using development time to control
the contrast of negatives. This would certainly be a more likely reason for Kodak
shifting it's position and advice on using development time to control negative
contrast.

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. 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.

In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives and the
improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is enough of a
reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's position on
the matter simply reinforces my position.

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...

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Interestingly enough I can't seem to find this book for sale. The only refernece
: I can find is to a long out of print book from 1952. It's clear from reading new
: publications from Kodak that they have come to see the light.

: No, perhaps those who knew what the hell they were talking about
: retired or died, dumbass....

It's more likely that while the engineers were working with Ansel Adams during the '50s
on the Zone system they came to realize the value of using development time to control
the contrast of negatives. This would certainly be a more likely reason for Kodak
shifting it's position and advice on using development time to control negative
contrast.

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. 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.

In any case the improvements I got in both the print-ability of my negatives and the
improvement I got in my prints after starting to use the zone system is enough of a
reason for me to continue using the zone system. The reversal of Kodak's position on
the matter simply reinforces my position.

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...

Paul Atreides wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Beating a dead horse is more rewarding than a discussion on the Zone
System with this individual. So is pounding sand, ****ing up a rope, etc.
etc. etc...

I need to update my filters. I thought I ignored everything MS wrote...

Ignorance is bliss, and ignore MS is sooooo blissful...

Jim

Address the goddamn post, asshole!

Back into the killfile. Revised my Newsreader........was willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt,....bye bye.

ZoNazi asshole..

Paul Atreides wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...
Frank,

Beating a dead horse is more rewarding than a discussion on the Zone
System with this individual. So is pounding sand, ****ing up a rope, etc.
etc. etc...

I need to update my filters. I thought I ignored everything MS wrote...

Ignorance is bliss, and ignore MS is sooooo blissful...

Jim

Address the goddamn post, asshole!

Back into the killfile. Revised my Newsreader........was willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt,....bye bye.

ZoNazi asshole..

"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.

"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.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...

What do you mean? Would you prefer to remain ignorant?

No! On the contrary. I for one have begun to learn and understand the Zone
System. I for one have become familiar with it's workings and techniques.
I for one have tried it and seen it's results. I for one do not hide behind
outdated and changed information. I for one have NOT remained ignorant.

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....