About APUG, to Patrick

seog wrote:

: The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do. Those
: "fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
: theories. And you?

: There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
: print.

: Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

Try
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...tti&off set=0

--




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

Frank:

You'll note I am not obsessed with hatred for YOU.

Why do you spend so much time taking shots at me?

Just curious.

It doesn't make your photography any better....


Frank Pittel wrote:
seog wrote:

: The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do. Those
: "fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
: theories. And you?

: There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
: print.

: Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

Try
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...tti&off set=0

--




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

"Mike King" wrote

Vicious circle? He who shall remain nameless said, "I am especially
intolerant of those who are intolerant," like a vampire there must not be
any mirrors in his house.

The answer is to be tolerant of the intolerant.

It takes two to have a dispute, leave the guy alone ...

Never argue with an idiot, after a while it is difficult
to tell which is the idiot.

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...

Try
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...tti&off set=0


Amazing! An undiscovered genius! Who knew. I especially like the one with
the squirrel.

It's a groundhog, dumbass....

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

Try
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...tti&off set=0


Amazing! An undiscovered genius! Who knew. I especially like the one with
the squirrel.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Mike King" wrote

Vicious circle? He who shall remain nameless said, "I am especially
intolerant of those who are intolerant," like a vampire there must not be
any mirrors in his house.

The answer is to be tolerant of the intolerant.

It takes two to have a dispute, leave the guy alone ...

Never argue with an idiot, after a while it is difficult
to tell which is the idiot.

The MOST intolerant here are the zonazis.

They accept NO criticism of the zoan cistern whatsoever. They blast
every questioner, whether he has any interest in large format and
landscapes or not, with COMMANDS to read Ansel Adams's books, then
start talking about their preferences in 4x5 sheet films for landscape
work. It NEVER occurs to them that there could be SERIOUS photographers
who have NO interest in landscapes or 4x5, and who are interested in
getting high quality with 35mm.

1) 120 or 220 negative rollfilm is the only medium at all useable if one
wants quality results. Anything else is inferior - 4 x 5 suffers
terribly from film flatness problems especially if the photographer is
in a windy situation or has his own flatulence problem, whilst 35mm, as
even the most backward amateur snapper can see, is full of holes.

2) The zone system as I interpret it (successfully) actually protects me
and my equipment. Zone I is my favourite, as I know I will be safe and
my views will be clear, so I take my more expensive cameras with me.
Zone III is something of a grey area - one must be careful because some
dark character could jump out of nowhere and turn out to be a vandal or
a thief. Zone V is an extremely difficult area to work in - one requires
a thick lead-lined bag for *both* your sets of equipment due to the
radiation risk (e.g. Chernobyl).

3) When working in the field, always beware of large flying objects
(even eagles) since it is quite clearly possible, probable even, that
particulate excreta may be ejected and due to the gravity acting upon it
this will accelerate, always in a downward direction, the danger being
contamination of your environment. *ALWAYS* use the MAXIMUM aperture
setting possible, both to reduce the depth of field you are exposed to
and to avoid bringing such ejected matter into focus.

3) There is only one black-and-white film worth knowing about. All
others are too contrasty or too low in speed. The only film one should
consider utilising for black-and-white work is Kodak Professional
BW400CN film, now that their Portra 400BW is no longer produced. It uses
the superior C-41 process and renders all other monochrome films
obsolete, and in addition it is far more scratch-resistant.

4) Regarding developers, well, there is of course a wide choice. However
for superior results it has to be Kodak Flexicolor SM[tm]. Some workers
however feel that Kodak C-41B developer, with its few wash steps, also
delivers acceptable results. Neither of these developers require changes
in concentration or development time or temperature to effect good
results. As I said, there is a wide choice.

5) Always be prepared to discard others' beliefs. With the exception of
my own, which I have developed from many years of experience before
fixing them in my head, there simply are no other valid beliefs. I have
known many people and I have discussed much of my knowledge and
experience with them, but in all those years, even in areas outside my
direct area of expertise, I have absolutely *never* been told that I was
wrong, only that I am always right. The Colt .45 showing out of my open
hip-holster had nothing to do with it. And you cannot prove it. Because
I KNOW you cannot prove it.

6) Always be prepared to reject others' beliefs. With the exception of
my own, which I have developed after many years of experience before
fixing them in my head, there simply are no other sane beliefs. I have
known many people and I have discussed some of my knowledge and
experience with them, but in all those decades, even in areas outside my
small area of expertise, I have absolutely *never* been told that I was
wrong, only that I am always right. The Colt .45 showing out of my open
hip-holster had nothing to do with it. And you cannot prove it. Because
I KNOW you cannot prove it. I repeat this verbatim so that those of you
who are a little slow on reading have a second chance to read it and
catch up.

7) Be prepared to criticize and scorn those unwilling to subject their
own inconsequential beliefs to my particular scrutiny. Join in and help
me tell everybody how stupid they actually are and how we can best stop
them ever doing any photography again. The un-knowledgeable should not
be permitted to take photographs in any case. Nothing should be owned or
used by those without expert and professional knowledge regarding its
inner workings. These idiots *must* be exposed so that society can be
protected and purified of their comments.

8) Please note that this posting makes no reference to that
unmentionable film developer r0d1nal. Never mention that particular name
in the context of photography, for it is heresy, akin to speaking of the
Scottish Play by its actual name whilst on stage or even in the wings.
To do so will result in large amounts of eagle ejecta plunging from the sky.

9) In summary, I know that everything above is a true and accurate
representation of the highest level of knowledge that is possible to
attain using the human mind. It is not the sort of drivel and stupidity
which everybody else in this newsgroup writes (and I hope that is taken
most offensively) because I alone have more knowledge than all of you
put together, and I know I am right.

10) If I do not see that you are all observing my comments and views I
shall re-post this to the newsgroup in addition to mailing it to anyone
writing anything contradicting my statements. I am the best photographer
in the world, the only reason that some of you will not have seen my
excellent work is that a lot of it is classified and the rest is keeping
me so busy that I hardly ever have time to write to this newsgroup.

Obey! - F.C. Trevor Gale.