35mm on grade 3 explained

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

You have completely misunderstood, as is typical of the Zonazis.

Please read the Kodak text AGAIN. It has nothing to do with
'mass-market aesthetics'. That's a complete distortion of the studies,
which obviously you have not read. Richard has.

I believe Richard can speak for himself. I'll come back on this if
neccessary, but your blank denial is impotent.

I suggest you read the studies before commenting further about them.
They were conducted over a long period of time, using both expert and
non-expert observers. It seems easy to dismiss something about which
you know nothing.

In your arrogance, you presume to tell the viewer that his perceptive
faculties are out of whack?

I am not telling the viewer anything. The sample, method, time and
circumstances evinced by the outcome of the study says it all. Read on.

Ditto above comment.

'Perception' has absolutely NOTHING to do
with aesthetics in this sense. Our visual faculty has been honed by
millions of years of evolution.

The eye is part of perception, but not all of perception. Perception can
also depend a great deal upon how one has been trained to perceive, and that
is hugely influenced by culture which does change. This particular group is
certainly not a random sample of the population at large.

Kodak has called the study 'exhaustive'. I suggest you try to get
ahold of some of these study reports.

As I said, many of
them have quite specific visual prefrences developed from rather elusive
semiotics so Persons who respond here, for better or worse, are not typical
of the whole: they aren't happy with Walmart metrics.

This is so unintelligible and so irrelevant I cannot fathom why you
would bring it up.

We know when things 'look right' without having to be told.

There are many cases in which the human eye cannot possibly distinguish
colors or colors withthout hue (that's tonality of black-and-white) in plain
light of day. It's a famous truism. I can show you samples.

But we CAN tell when a photograph reflects the scene accurately.


Our color vision enables us to distinguish
between ripe fruit and 'green' fruit.

Fine if your aspirations are limited to green and red fruit, but you are
drifting way off the subject. How about the impression of 'vividness'? It's
cultural.. Believe it.

This was an example. There are many others. Our senses evolved for
entirely practical purposes: eating, breeding, and survival.

"jjs" wrote in message ...
"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

You have completely misunderstood, as is typical of the Zonazis.

Please read the Kodak text AGAIN. It has nothing to do with
'mass-market aesthetics'. That's a complete distortion of the studies,
which obviously you have not read. Richard has.

I believe Richard can speak for himself. I'll come back on this if
neccessary, but your blank denial is impotent.

I suggest you read the studies before commenting further about them.
They were conducted over a long period of time, using both expert and
non-expert observers. It seems easy to dismiss something about which
you know nothing.

In your arrogance, you presume to tell the viewer that his perceptive
faculties are out of whack?

I am not telling the viewer anything. The sample, method, time and
circumstances evinced by the outcome of the study says it all. Read on.

Ditto above comment.

'Perception' has absolutely NOTHING to do
with aesthetics in this sense. Our visual faculty has been honed by
millions of years of evolution.

The eye is part of perception, but not all of perception. Perception can
also depend a great deal upon how one has been trained to perceive, and that
is hugely influenced by culture which does change. This particular group is
certainly not a random sample of the population at large.

Kodak has called the study 'exhaustive'. I suggest you try to get
ahold of some of these study reports.

As I said, many of
them have quite specific visual prefrences developed from rather elusive
semiotics so Persons who respond here, for better or worse, are not typical
of the whole: they aren't happy with Walmart metrics.

This is so unintelligible and so irrelevant I cannot fathom why you
would bring it up.

We know when things 'look right' without having to be told.

There are many cases in which the human eye cannot possibly distinguish
colors or colors withthout hue (that's tonality of black-and-white) in plain
light of day. It's a famous truism. I can show you samples.

But we CAN tell when a photograph reflects the scene accurately.


Our color vision enables us to distinguish
between ripe fruit and 'green' fruit.

Fine if your aspirations are limited to green and red fruit, but you are
drifting way off the subject. How about the impression of 'vividness'? It's
cultural.. Believe it.

This was an example. There are many others. Our senses evolved for
entirely practical purposes: eating, breeding, and survival.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

Perception has nothing to do with genes. It's a brain function and might be
why you fail to perceive. See definition 3a & b. One of us doesn't
understand the word 'perception', and it ain't me.

It isn't me.

I cannot interpret all
the frequencies a dog hears because I fail to have the CAPACITY or ABILITY
to translate those frequencies into nerve impulses, not because I don't
perceive them IDIOT!

No, you DO NOT perceive them. Perception involves the whole system
from ear or eye or tongue or nose or skin to brain. If any part of it
does not work, perception is not possible or is diminished, depending
on the nature of the failure.

My ear drum still move at those frequencies (to a
limited degree). It's a physiological limitation. I also cannot see
ultraviolet or infrared light like certain insects. Does that mean I don't
perceive those frequencies of light either?

Yes, it does.

Your perception of infrared is
when you press the button, the TV comes on.

Sorry, I cannot see (perceive) the beam.

If it matters to you, yes, I can hear a dog whistle. I have extraordinary
hearing as proven many times in my military career.

Surely you cannot hear X-rays.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message ...

Perception has nothing to do with genes. It's a brain function and might be
why you fail to perceive. See definition 3a & b. One of us doesn't
understand the word 'perception', and it ain't me.

It isn't me.

I cannot interpret all
the frequencies a dog hears because I fail to have the CAPACITY or ABILITY
to translate those frequencies into nerve impulses, not because I don't
perceive them IDIOT!

No, you DO NOT perceive them. Perception involves the whole system
from ear or eye or tongue or nose or skin to brain. If any part of it
does not work, perception is not possible or is diminished, depending
on the nature of the failure.

My ear drum still move at those frequencies (to a
limited degree). It's a physiological limitation. I also cannot see
ultraviolet or infrared light like certain insects. Does that mean I don't
perceive those frequencies of light either?

Yes, it does.

Your perception of infrared is
when you press the button, the TV comes on.

Sorry, I cannot see (perceive) the beam.

If it matters to you, yes, I can hear a dog whistle. I have extraordinary
hearing as proven many times in my military career.

Surely you cannot hear X-rays.

Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:

That's right: Adams DID NOT use the zs to make some of his best-known
work. He obviously DID NOT distort the mid-tones by gross changes in
development times. What Richard is saying is that Adams DID NOT
practice what he preached later.


I don't think Adams ever "preached" that the purpose of the
ZS is to slavishly adjust the development so that the dynamic
range of the scene fits the dynamic range of the paper.
The point of the ZS is to give the photographer better control
over the photographic process. Once he has that control, it
is up to the photographer what he wants to do with it.

Peter.

Many of his followers do, however. See John Sexton's work, for a prime example.

Uranium Committee wrote:
: Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
: Uranium Committee wrote:
:
: That's right: Adams DID NOT use the zs to make some of his best-known
: work. He obviously DID NOT distort the mid-tones by gross changes in
: development times. What Richard is saying is that Adams DID NOT
: practice what he preached later.
:
:
: I don't think Adams ever "preached" that the purpose of the
: ZS is to slavishly adjust the development so that the dynamic
: range of the scene fits the dynamic range of the paper.
: The point of the ZS is to give the photographer better control
: over the photographic process. Once he has that control, it
: is up to the photographer what he wants to do with it.
:
: Peter.

: Many of his followers do, however. See John Sexton's work, for a prime example.

I've seen his work and it's incredible. The worst of his prints that I've seen
is orders of magnitude better then "waffle boy".
--




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

Uranium Committee wrote:
: Peter Irwin wrote in message ...
: Uranium Committee wrote:
:
: That's right: Adams DID NOT use the zs to make some of his best-known
: work. He obviously DID NOT distort the mid-tones by gross changes in
: development times. What Richard is saying is that Adams DID NOT
: practice what he preached later.
:
:
: I don't think Adams ever "preached" that the purpose of the
: ZS is to slavishly adjust the development so that the dynamic
: range of the scene fits the dynamic range of the paper.
: The point of the ZS is to give the photographer better control
: over the photographic process. Once he has that control, it
: is up to the photographer what he wants to do with it.
:
: Peter.

: Many of his followers do, however. See John Sexton's work, for a prime example.

I've seen his work and it's incredible. The worst of his prints that I've seen
is orders of magnitude better then "waffle boy".
--




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

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:52:47 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
. com...

You have completely misunderstood, as is typical of the Zonazis.

Please read the Kodak text AGAIN. It has nothing to do with
'mass-market aesthetics'. That's a complete distortion of the studies,
which obviously you have not read. Richard has.

I believe Richard can speak for himself. I'll come back on this if
neccessary, but your blank denial is impotent.

In your arrogance, you presume to tell the viewer that his perceptive
faculties are out of whack?

I am not telling the viewer anything. The sample, method, time and
circumstances evinced by the outcome of the study says it all. Read on.

'Perception' has absolutely NOTHING to do
with aesthetics in this sense. Our visual faculty has been honed by
millions of years of evolution.

The eye is part of perception, but not all of perception. Perception can
also depend a great deal upon how one has been trained to perceive, and that
is hugely influenced by culture which does change. This particular group is
certainly not a random sample of the population at large. As I said, many of
them have quite specific visual prefrences developed from rather elusive
semiotics so Persons who respond here, for better or worse, are not typical
of the whole: they aren't happy with Walmart metrics.

I think this is the place to point out something overlooked in this
"discussion".

The Kodak study mentioned, which may be the same or similar to one I
saw in the old phot encyclopedia I once had, showed a range of prints
to many subjects for their judgement as to acceptability. There was a
range from near total rejection of prints from underexposed negatives,
through general acceptance to rejection, once again, with
overexposure. Ehile the experiment, whose results I saw, may not be
exactly the same as Kodak's, the one factor in common is that there
was a range of acceptability in the subject's response. Human
perception is variable.

Both studies, if they were not the same study, were focussed on
general photography of real world scenes for the mundane recording of
such scenes. As such they were not considering interpretive
renderings in any fashion.

When I started out in photography, I had to master such general
applications. Later, I delved into more interpretive uses.
Eventually, when working as a Director of Photography in motion
pictures, I was forced to do most of my interpretive work with initial
exposure, as the range of options in the processing and post
processing stages were limited or downright expensive.

Of late, I have become just another snapshooter, and probably would
have to agree with the newly radioactive flamer as to what is most
useful. But that's only because I gave up using most of the tools
still availble to me, and many others, as an artist; for now.

The slavish reliance on the results of either study is limiting.
There's more to be gained by considering the use of varied techniques
than these studies would suggest.


We know when things 'look right' without having to be told.

There are many cases in which the human eye cannot possibly distinguish
colors or colors withthout hue (that's tonality of black-and-white) in plain
light of day. It's a famous truism. I can show you samples.

Our color vision enables us to distinguish
between ripe fruit and 'green' fruit.

Fine if your aspirations are limited to green and red fruit, but you are
drifting way off the subject. How about the impression of 'vividness'? It's
cultural.. Believe it.

If you make a photograph of ripe
red fruit and tell us that 'just because it's red does't mean that
it's ripe' I say you're full of it.

Let me guess, you believe red grocery store meat is really read, and the
'fresh' tomatos are red, too. Pitty you chose that example. Maybe it's a
good thing, too, that some people are ignorant. My pale orange tomatos are
safe from your kind, as are our ripe green apples.

If you claim that your 'aesthetic'
is more sophisticated than mine simply because YOU think YOU have the
right to call red fruit 'green'...then there's no hope for you...

I've proven above that my experience overwhelms your impressionistic
ignorance.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:52:47 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
. com...

You have completely misunderstood, as is typical of the Zonazis.

Please read the Kodak text AGAIN. It has nothing to do with
'mass-market aesthetics'. That's a complete distortion of the studies,
which obviously you have not read. Richard has.

I believe Richard can speak for himself. I'll come back on this if
neccessary, but your blank denial is impotent.

In your arrogance, you presume to tell the viewer that his perceptive
faculties are out of whack?

I am not telling the viewer anything. The sample, method, time and
circumstances evinced by the outcome of the study says it all. Read on.

'Perception' has absolutely NOTHING to do
with aesthetics in this sense. Our visual faculty has been honed by
millions of years of evolution.

The eye is part of perception, but not all of perception. Perception can
also depend a great deal upon how one has been trained to perceive, and that
is hugely influenced by culture which does change. This particular group is
certainly not a random sample of the population at large. As I said, many of
them have quite specific visual prefrences developed from rather elusive
semiotics so Persons who respond here, for better or worse, are not typical
of the whole: they aren't happy with Walmart metrics.

I think this is the place to point out something overlooked in this
"discussion".

The Kodak study mentioned, which may be the same or similar to one I
saw in the old phot encyclopedia I once had, showed a range of prints
to many subjects for their judgement as to acceptability. There was a
range from near total rejection of prints from underexposed negatives,
through general acceptance to rejection, once again, with
overexposure. Ehile the experiment, whose results I saw, may not be
exactly the same as Kodak's, the one factor in common is that there
was a range of acceptability in the subject's response. Human
perception is variable.

Both studies, if they were not the same study, were focussed on
general photography of real world scenes for the mundane recording of
such scenes. As such they were not considering interpretive
renderings in any fashion.

When I started out in photography, I had to master such general
applications. Later, I delved into more interpretive uses.
Eventually, when working as a Director of Photography in motion
pictures, I was forced to do most of my interpretive work with initial
exposure, as the range of options in the processing and post
processing stages were limited or downright expensive.

Of late, I have become just another snapshooter, and probably would
have to agree with the newly radioactive flamer as to what is most
useful. But that's only because I gave up using most of the tools
still availble to me, and many others, as an artist; for now.

The slavish reliance on the results of either study is limiting.
There's more to be gained by considering the use of varied techniques
than these studies would suggest.


We know when things 'look right' without having to be told.

There are many cases in which the human eye cannot possibly distinguish
colors or colors withthout hue (that's tonality of black-and-white) in plain
light of day. It's a famous truism. I can show you samples.

Our color vision enables us to distinguish
between ripe fruit and 'green' fruit.

Fine if your aspirations are limited to green and red fruit, but you are
drifting way off the subject. How about the impression of 'vividness'? It's
cultural.. Believe it.

If you make a photograph of ripe
red fruit and tell us that 'just because it's red does't mean that
it's ripe' I say you're full of it.

Let me guess, you believe red grocery store meat is really read, and the
'fresh' tomatos are red, too. Pitty you chose that example. Maybe it's a
good thing, too, that some people are ignorant. My pale orange tomatos are
safe from your kind, as are our ripe green apples.

If you claim that your 'aesthetic'
is more sophisticated than mine simply because YOU think YOU have the
right to call red fruit 'green'...then there's no hope for you...

I've proven above that my experience overwhelms your impressionistic
ignorance.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:07:20 +0200, "Jim Phelps"
wrote:

Another Scarpittism...

LOL ! Scarpology, scatology what's the difference ?

0


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email