If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote in message ... Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time has changed. No, it has NOT. Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film development. As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer", it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for: LOWER contrast: 5.5 minutes AVERAGE contrast: 8 minutes HIGHER contrast: 11.5 minutes The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL DEVELOPMENT". (1970 edition, page 7) (Note: the CAPS are mine.) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote in message ... Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time has changed. No, it has NOT. Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film development. As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer", it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for: LOWER contrast: 5.5 minutes AVERAGE contrast: 8 minutes HIGHER contrast: 11.5 minutes The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL DEVELOPMENT". (1970 edition, page 7) (Note: the CAPS are mine.) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote in message ... Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time has changed. No, it has NOT. Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film development. As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer", it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for: LOWER contrast: 5.5 minutes AVERAGE contrast: 8 minutes HIGHER contrast: 11.5 minutes The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL DEVELOPMENT". (1970 edition, page 7) (Note: the CAPS are mine.) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: (Alexis Neel) wrote in message . com... : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : You'll note the words 'FROM KODAK' in all caps that I placed at the : beginning of this post. Or are you such an utter ****ing moron that : you cannot read??? Seems like it! : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : Oh, really? Why so? Ansel Adams wrote 'The Negative' in 1949. That : means it's wrong, of course. Actually according to Ansel Adams Autobiography the first version of "The Negative" was first published in 1948. The information is in fact obsolete. This was acknoledged by Adams and in 1981 he had the second updated version of the book published. He also continued to refine, perfect and adapt the zone system to new films and developers until his death. It's also interesting that at the time the first edition of 'The Negative' was published Adams ask Dr. E. C. Kenneth Mees the director of the Kodak laboratories and his assistant Dr. Walter Clarke to check both the accuracy of the zone system and it's codification of applied sensitometery. After testing they confirmed it's accuracy. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : Alexis Neel wrote: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time : has changed. : No, it has NOT. It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying. : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and : then contradicted by Kodak in later times. : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone : System Manual', written in 1953 or so. The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's and it's accuracy was confirmed. : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and : grade 2 paper. : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old : and new, state this. Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by scarpitti. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : Alexis Neel wrote: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time : has changed. : No, it has NOT. It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying. : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and : then contradicted by Kodak in later times. : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone : System Manual', written in 1953 or so. The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's and it's accuracy was confirmed. : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and : grade 2 paper. : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old : and new, state this. Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by scarpitti. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : Alexis Neel wrote: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time : has changed. : No, it has NOT. It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying. : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and : then contradicted by Kodak in later times. : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone : System Manual', written in 1953 or so. The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's and it's accuracy was confirmed. 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean? I repeat the specific passage in 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers' that refutes the approach of variable film development: "As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve. It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows." HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET? : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and : grade 2 paper. : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old : and new, state this. Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by scarpitti. No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from: 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : Alexis Neel wrote: : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time : has changed. : No, it has NOT. It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying. : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and : then contradicted by Kodak in later times. : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone : System Manual', written in 1953 or so. The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's and it's accuracy was confirmed. 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean? I repeat the specific passage in 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers' that refutes the approach of variable film development: "As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve. It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows." HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET? : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and : grade 2 paper. : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old : and new, state this. Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by scarpitti. No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from: 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : Michael Scarpitti wrote: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : : Alexis Neel wrote: : : : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak. : : : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his. : : : : Second, its from 1956. A lot has changed since then. : : : : Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time : : has changed. : : : No, it has NOT. : : It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional : black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not : going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying. : : : That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and : : then contradicted by Kodak in later times. : : : The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means : : it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old : : book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone : : System Manual', written in 1953 or so. : : The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's : and it's accuracy was confirmed. : 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the **** does that mean? I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanationSP? but you don't have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it. : : Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti : : used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control : : negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that : : film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and : : grade 2 paper. : : : For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film : : users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of : : technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old : : and new, state this. : : Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is : primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by : scarpitti. : No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from: Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photomechanical Process | Ken Smith | In The Darkroom | 27 | July 19th 04 10:49 PM |
Photographic plate question | C. L?pez | Film & Labs | 4 | June 3rd 04 05:19 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
New Photographic Community Site | Peakoverload | General Photography Techniques | 0 | January 21st 04 11:38 PM |