Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:41:00 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

Frank Pittel wrote:


You are correct that the CPE (the one I have) can handle 600ml of chemistry and the CPP
and CPA processors can handle 1liter of chemistry.


When I got my first tank I figured I would get a processor but I got a
motorbase first. Turns out the motorbase does everything I need. I then
thought I'd get a processor if I ever wanted to do colour but now it seems I
can live without. The only thing I miss is doing one roll of film or maybe
a few sheets of 4x5. With my setup I'm using 640ml of chemicals or more so
one roll isn't that pratical.

Nick

When I was doing 4x5 sheets, I used a Yankee twice, an HP Combiplan
for a half year and, finally, a Doran 8x10 daylight print tray.

I would lay out the 4 4x5 sheets base up in a frame I had that wound
up with them butted together in an 8x10 area, place a piece of Magic
tape at the inner intersection of the sheets and flip the whole thing
into the tray. After placing the light tight cover on top, I tilted
the whole thing to the filling position, poured in the developer and
tilted the whole thing back down to allow the developer to flow over
the sheets. I umped the developer through the fill hole when time was
up, then did the same thing for the stop and adding the fixer. At
this point, I could remove the cover and finish in the lray in room
light in order to watch for clearing time and complete the process.

The agitation was always even, and I had no problems with the use of
the tape on the results. This worked for eveything from negative to
positive to Cibachrome.

You might be able to do this with any 8x10 developing tray in a
darkroom;; you just have to work out a fill and dump procedure and
come up with some lightproof cover. Or work in the dark.

Good luck

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : jjs wrote:
: : : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : jjs wrote:
:
: : : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : : :-)
:
: : : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
: :
: : The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: : with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: : get a lot of here in the midwest.
:
: : Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: : COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!
:
: Some of us like some tonality in their prints.

: Correct, not overly-contracted pieces of **** such as the likes of
: John Sexton and you produce.

You know nothing of the work that I produce.

: We have also learned that the best way
: to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative.

: Yes, not overdeveoped or underdeveloped. Normally developed, moron.

You can develop you film by whatever goofy system that you've invented. When producing
dreck like waffle boy it doesn't make any difference how the film is processed.

I'll stick with a properly developed negative.

: The closer the
: tonal range of the negative matches the tonal range of the paper being used the easier
: the printing will be and the better the final results.

: Of course. And water is wet, I hear!

I see that you're to stupid to understand how to get a properly developed neative.

:
: When the highlights are blown out on the negative the is nothing to print.

: Then don't include them in the composition, idiot! You want 'tonality'
: while trying to encompass 77 stops of range on a film that cannot
: handle it, so you use N-56 devlopment, and complain that the prints
: lack 'snap'. Duh, you're a ****ing moron.

That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a negative
that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never had to deal
with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with it.

: The same way
: that there's no way to get detail in the shadows where the negative is clear.

: Right. Film's latitude is limited, ****wit.


--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : jjs wrote:
: : : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : jjs wrote:
:
: : : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : : :-)
:
: : : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
: :
: : The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: : with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: : get a lot of here in the midwest.
:
: : Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: : COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!
:
: Some of us like some tonality in their prints.

: Correct, not overly-contracted pieces of **** such as the likes of
: John Sexton and you produce.

You know nothing of the work that I produce.

: We have also learned that the best way
: to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative.

: Yes, not overdeveoped or underdeveloped. Normally developed, moron.

You can develop you film by whatever goofy system that you've invented. When producing
dreck like waffle boy it doesn't make any difference how the film is processed.

I'll stick with a properly developed negative.

: The closer the
: tonal range of the negative matches the tonal range of the paper being used the easier
: the printing will be and the better the final results.

: Of course. And water is wet, I hear!

I see that you're to stupid to understand how to get a properly developed neative.

:
: When the highlights are blown out on the negative the is nothing to print.

: Then don't include them in the composition, idiot! You want 'tonality'
: while trying to encompass 77 stops of range on a film that cannot
: handle it, so you use N-56 devlopment, and complain that the prints
: lack 'snap'. Duh, you're a ****ing moron.

That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a negative
that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never had to deal
with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with it.

: The same way
: that there's no way to get detail in the shadows where the negative is clear.

: Right. Film's latitude is limited, ****wit.


--




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

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

: : : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : : :-)

: : : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
: :
: : The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: : with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: : get a lot of here in the midwest.

: : Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: : COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!
:
: Some of us like some tonality in their prints.

: Correct, not overly-contracted pieces of **** such as the likes of
: John Sexton and you produce.

You know nothing of the work that I produce.

: We have also learned that the best way
: to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative.

: Yes, not overdeveoped or underdeveloped. Normally developed, moron.

You can develop you film by whatever goofy system that you've invented. When producing
dreck like waffle boy it doesn't make any difference how the film is processed.

'Waffle Boy' is better than 'Man Jumping Over Puddle'.

I'll stick with a properly developed negative.

You haven't the faintest notion of what a properly developed negative
is or how to get one.

"Frank Pittel":

That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a
negative
that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never
had to deal
with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with
it.

It is unfortunate that M.S. is so hostile. Simply stated, perhaps his method
is simiilar to my own. I expose the the important shadow and develop for the
important highlight detail, and work hard during the print stage. That's a
common-sense, short-cut description of the Zone System. I'm _sure_ that M.S.
has done the same thing.

"Frank Pittel":

That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a
negative
that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never
had to deal
with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with
it.

It is unfortunate that M.S. is so hostile. Simply stated, perhaps his method
is simiilar to my own. I expose the the important shadow and develop for the
important highlight detail, and work hard during the print stage. That's a
common-sense, short-cut description of the Zone System. I'm _sure_ that M.S.
has done the same thing.

jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel":
:
: That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a
: negative
: that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never
: had to deal
: with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with
: it.

: It is unfortunate that M.S. is so hostile. Simply stated, perhaps his method
: is simiilar to my own. I expose the the important shadow and develop for the
: important highlight detail, and work hard during the print stage. That's a
: common-sense, short-cut description of the Zone System. I'm _sure_ that M.S.
: has done the same thing.

As far as I can tell from his previous posts scarpitti knows what the exposure should
be without a meter ( he guesses ) and processes the film with the published development
times. The contrast is controlled by the paper grade he prints on.

What you describe is the zone system which I and many others use and what scarpitti claims
is a fraud.

--




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

jjs wrote:
: "Frank Pittel":
:
: That's the scarpitti method. I develop the film properly and end up with a
: negative
: that has printable detail in the shadows and highlights. Since I've never
: had to deal
: with a 77 stop scene and never will I won't worry about how to deal with
: it.

: It is unfortunate that M.S. is so hostile. Simply stated, perhaps his method
: is simiilar to my own. I expose the the important shadow and develop for the
: important highlight detail, and work hard during the print stage. That's a
: common-sense, short-cut description of the Zone System. I'm _sure_ that M.S.
: has done the same thing.

As far as I can tell from his previous posts scarpitti knows what the exposure should
be without a meter ( he guesses ) and processes the film with the published development
times. The contrast is controlled by the paper grade he prints on.

What you describe is the zone system which I and many others use and what scarpitti claims
is a fraud.

--




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

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : : jjs wrote:
: : : : "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: : : : ...
: : : : jjs wrote:
:
: : : : I see that your position on Kodak's T-grain films are starting to soften.
: : : : :-)
:
: : : : A little. I appreciate the straight-line 'curve' for flat light situations.
: : : : I haven't been able to cope with high-contrast scenes. In fact, I become so
: : : : despondent that I held a film burning for the whole lot of exposed
: : : : negatives. That's a Bad Thing.
: : :
: : : The TM films are intended to be used with the zone system. You can control the contrast
: : : with reduced development. I haven't figured out what to do with the 10 stop scenes we
: : : get a lot of here in the midwest.
:
: : : Typical idiotic zonehead response. Let 'em go! YOU DON'T NEED TO
: : : COMPRESS THE NEGATIVE SO MUCH! LET SOME OF THE SBR GO, MORON!
: :
: : Some of us like some tonality in their prints.
:
: : Correct, not overly-contracted pieces of **** such as the likes of
: : John Sexton and you produce.
:
: You know nothing of the work that I produce.
:
: : We have also learned that the best way
: : to get the best possible print is to have a properly developed negative.
:
: : Yes, not overdeveoped or underdeveloped. Normally developed, moron.
:
: You can develop you film by whatever goofy system that you've invented. When producing
: dreck like waffle boy it doesn't make any difference how the film is processed.

: 'Waffle Boy' is better than 'Man Jumping Over Puddle'.

Waffle Boy is dreck and a wast of both film and paper.

:
: I'll stick with a properly developed negative.

: You haven't the faintest notion of what a properly developed negative
: is or how to get one.

Interestingly you found it necessary to delete my description of what a properly
developed negative is and your agreement with it. Why was that??

One thing I do know is that the scarpitti method won't give me anything close to a
properly developed negative in 9 out of 10 exposures.
--




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

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

As far as I can tell from his previous posts scarpitti knows what the
exposure should
be without a meter ( he guesses ) and processes the film with the
published development
times. The contrast is controlled by the paper grade he prints on.

What you describe is the zone system which I and many others use and what
scarpitti claims
is a fraud.

In a strange way I sympathize with Scarpitti's philosophy, but certainly not
his anger and arrogance. There is a place for his kind of
exposure/development and it's worked well for a lot of miniature camera
people who embraced it as a stylistic technique (or lack thereof). It's just
too bad he's trying to make his mark as the worlds most obnoxious and
intollerant person.

I learned the Zone System from a great photographer in 1966, but my career
led me to photojournalism where for years I used mainly Tri-X and exposed
and composed to accomodate whatever processing it was to be subjected to
(Versamat was quite popular for some time. Horrors.) Later when I could do
my own processing (at a great paper, then a magazine), it was largely D-76
and Edwal FG7 with the film at 200 and 320 respectively, modestly
underdeveloped to hold the highlights. Now that I'm retired from that stuff,
I can go back with 4x5 and _really_ custom expose/develop. May I recommend
the book, "Way beyond Monochrome"? (Sorry, but I forgot who in this group
suggested it here first).